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

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Health and Human Services

###### National Institutes of Health

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 Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; NIDDK Clinical Centers.                    

*Date:*                         July 15, 2022.                    

*Time:*                         9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.                    

*Agenda:*                         To review and evaluate grant applications.                    

*Place:*                         National Institutes of Health/NIDDK, 2 Democracy, 6707 Democracy Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).                    

*Contact Person:*                         Elena Sanovich, Ph.D., Scientific Review Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, Room 7351, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-2542, 301-594-8886,                         *sanoviche@mail.nih.gov.*

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

Miguelina Perez,

Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.

[FR Doc. 2022-13422 Filed 6-22-22; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-P
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

___________________

NO. 09-14-00437-CR 

___________________

HEYMAN HAROLD GUILLORY, Appellant 

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

__________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the Criminal District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 07-00940

__________________________________________________________________

ORDER

This is an appeal from the denial of a pro se motion for DNA testing. See 

Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 64.01-.05 (West 2006 & Supp. 2014). On October 

16, 2014, Guillory filed a pro se motion for appointment of appellate counsel. The 

statutory right to counsel granted by Article 64.01(c) of the Texas Code of 

Criminal Procedure extends to the appeal of an order entered under Chapter 64. 

Mindieta v. State, 132 S.W.3d 1 (Tex. App.—Amarillo 2002, order).

It is, therefore, ORDERED that the appeal be abated and the cause be 

remanded to the trial court. Upon remand, the trial court shall determine whether 
2

Guillory is indigent. If Guillory is indigent, the trial court shall appoint counsel to 

represent Guillory on appeal. Any hearings conducted by the trial court pursuant to 

this order must be recorded. A reporter’s record of such hearings, together with a 

clerk’s record containing any orders and findings entered by the trial court in 

connection with this order, shall be filed by November 19, 2014. All appellate 

timetables are suspended until the supplemental record here ordered has been filed, 

or until further order of this Court.

ORDER ENTERED October 23, 2014.

PER CURIAM

Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Horton, JJ.
I 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4784 

To extend the reduction of duty on Bifenthrin. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

DECEMBER 18, 2007 

Mr. REYNOLDS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To extend the reduction of duty on Bifenthrin. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. BIFENTHRIN. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.24.72 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended 

6 by striking ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 

7 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

8 subsection (a) applies with respect to goods entered, or 

9 withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or after 

10 the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


bajohnson on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
Shawn R. ERPELDING, Petitioner v. Scott R. FRAKES, Director, Nebraska Department of Correctional Services

No. 18-9128

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of Nebraska denied.
Matthew James GRIFFIN, Petitioner, v. Unknown GREGOLINE, et al.

No. 18-9141

Supreme Court of the United States.

October 7, 2019

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
Marvin FABRIKANT and wife, Patricia A. Fabrikant, MPF Investment Company, L.P., Arthur C. Smith III, and Arthur C. Smith III Revocable Trust v. CURRITUCK COUNTY, a North Carolina body politic and corporate, Corolla Associates, a Virginia limited partnership, Whalehead Associates, a Virginia limited partnership, His Whalehead, a Virginia limited partnership, Gerald J. Friedman, Whalehead Properties, a Virginia joint venture, Nancy Friedman, Estate of Samuel N. Riggs, deceased, James H. Kabler, Isador S. Schwartze, Estate of Samuel Sandler, deceased, Harry Sandler, State of North Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Coastal Resources Commission, Division of Coastal Management, and Donna D. Moffitt, as Director of the Division of Coastal Management.

No. 112P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 6, 2004.

Sid Hassell, Washington, J. Bryan Plumlee, Wadesboro, David J. Bederman, Professor, for Fabrikant et al.

*130Ronald Marquette, J. Allen Jernigan, Special Deputy Attorney Generals, Meredith A. Alcoke, Marc D. Bernstein, Assistant Attorney Generals, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Plaintiffs on the 11th day of March 2004 in this matter for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 prior to a determination by the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 6th day of May 2004."
Security Devices International Inc.: Exhibit 10.2 - Filed by newsfilecorp.com






By our written consent, we, the Required Holders of Notes
related to the Security Purchase Agreement dated October 22, 2018 between
Security Devices International, Inc. and Purchasers thereof, amend the terms of
the Notes in accordance with Section 16 of the Form of Note. 

Section 28(q), “Permitted Indebtedness”, will be amended to
remove the word “and” that precedes section (D), and replaces the period after
section (D) with a comma that is followed by the word “and”. The amendment will
add a new section (E) as follows: “additional indebtedness up to $7,000,000,
which may be subordinate or pari passu with these Notes.” 

Section
28(r), “Permitted Liens”, will be amended to remove the word “and” that precedes
section (v), and replaces the period after section (v) with a comma that is
followed by the word “and”. The amendment will add a new section (vi) as
follows: “any Lien arising with respect to Permitted Indebtedness incurred
pursuant to provision 28(q)(E).” 

Section 14(b), “Restricted Payments”
will be amended to add, after the last sentence, “Notwithstanding the foregoing,
the prohibitions and limitations on payment or repayment shall not apply in any
way to Permitted Indebtedness incurred pursuant to provision 28(q)(E).” 

	Signature: 		 
	 	 	 
	Name: 		 
	 	 	 
	Date:
STATE of North Carolina v. Martin Alva CRAWFORD.

No. 155P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Martin Alva Crawford, Pro Se.

Philip A. Lehman, Assistant Attorney General, Jeff Hunt, District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 1st day of April 2004 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
Agreement
to Extend Time for Payment of August 29,2013


 


“12%
Secured Promissory Due Note December 31, 2020”


 


Agreement
to Extend Time for Payment of August 29, 2013


“12%
Secured Promissory Note Due December 1, 2018”


 


This
Agreement to Extend Time for Payment of the August 29, 2013 “12% Secured Promissory Note that was due December 1, 2018”
is entered into by and between Plastic2Oil, Inc. fka JBI, Inc., a Nevada corporation (the “Company”) and Richard Heddle,
the Company’s Chief Executive Officer and a member of the Company board of directors (“Holder”) effective July
25, 2019.


 


WHEREAS,
on August 29, 2013, the Company entered into a Subscription Agreement (the “Purchase
Agreement”) with Holder;


 


WHEREAS,
pursuant to the Purchase Agreement the Company sold to Holder a $1 million principal amount “12% Secured Promissory Note
due August 31, 2018” (the “August Note”) that was further extended until December 1, 2018;


 


WHEREAS,
the August Note amended and extended until December 1, 2018 was issued by the Company provides inter alia that all principal
and interest on the Note was due and payable in full by the Company on December 1, 2018;


 


WHEREAS,
the Company and Holder desire to extend the date
when payment of all principal and interest is due and payable on the August Note to December 31, 2020; and,


 


WHEREAS,
the August Note provides that, to be effective, such an extension of the time for payment must be agreed in writing by Holder;


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, the Company and Holder agree that the time for payment of all principal and interest due and payable on the August
Note is hereby extended from December 1, 2018 to December 31, 2020.


 


	“Holder”	 	 	“The
    Company”
	 	 	 	Plastic2Oil,
    Inc.
	 	 	 	 
	/s/
    Richard     Heddle	 	By:	/s/
    Richard     Heddle
	Richard
    Heddle	 	 	Richard
    Heddle
	 	 	 	Chief
    Executive Officer
STATE v. Corey Tyrone SNEED.

No. 601PA03.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

January 21, 2004.

William P. Hart, Special Deputy Attorney General, John Carriker, District Attorney, for State.

Daniel Shatz, Wilmington, for Sneed.

Mary Price, General Counsel, for Families Against Mandatory Min.

Charles E. Daye, Legal Affairs Vice President, Paul M. Green, Durham, for NC Academy of Trial Lawyers

Motion by Families Against Mandatory Minimums and The North Carolina Academy of Trial Lawyers for Leave to Appear as Amici Curiae has been filed and the following order entered:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference this the 21st day of January 2004."
EXHIBIT
      32.1





**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION
      1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**





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 filing of the Quarterly
      Report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 (the “Report”) by
      China Fire & Security Group, Inc. (the “Registrant”), I, Brian Lin, hereby
      certify that:





1.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





2.
      To the
      best of my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,
      in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
      of
      the Registrant.




Dated:
                  August 14, 2007
              By:
              /s/
                  Brian LinName:Brian
                  LinTitle:  
                      Chief Executive Officer
SMITH BARNEY MANAGED MUNICIPALS FUND INC.

   Supplement dated August 28, 2000 to the Prospectus dated June 28, 2000, as
                            amended August 21, 2000

The following information replaces the information in the Prospectus:

 Sales charges

Class A shares

You buy Class A shares at the offering price, which is the net asset value plus
a sales charge. You pay a lower sales charge as the size of your investment
increases to certain levels called breakpoints. You do not pay a sales charge
on the fund's distributions or dividends you reinvest in additional Class A
shares.

The table below shows the rate of sales charge you pay, depending on the amount
you purchase. The table below also shows the amount of broker/dealer compensa-
tion that is paid out of the sales charge. This compensation includes commis-
sions and other fees Service Agents that sell shares of the Fund receive. The
distributor keeps up to approximately 10% of the sales charge imposed on Class
A shares. Service Agents also will receive the service fee payable on Class A
shares at an annual rate equal to 0.15% of the average daily net assets repre-
sented by the Class A shares sold by them

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                      Sales Charge as a % of:
                                                        Dealers'
                                                        Reallowance
                                           Net          as % of
                                 Offering  amount       offering
Amount of purchase               price (%) invested (%) price
<S>                              <C>       <C>          <C>
Less than $25,000                  4.00        4.17        3.60
$25,000 but less than $50,000      3.50        3.63        3.15
$50,000 but less than $100,000     3.00        3.09        2.70
$100,000 but less than $250,000    2.50        2.56        2.25
$250,000 but less than $500,000    1.50        1.52        1.35
$500,000 or more                    -0-         -0-         -0-
</TABLE>


<PAGE>


 More about deferred sales charges

Service Agents selling Class B shares receive a commission of up to 4.00% of
the purchase price of the Class B shares they sell, except for sales exempt
from the deferred sales charge. Service Agents also receive a service fee at an
annual rate equal to 0.15% of the average daily net assets represented by the
Class B shares they are servicing.

Service Agents selling Class L shares receive commissions of up to 1.75% of the
purchase price of the Class L shares they sell.


FD 01989
In the Matter of K.B., Minor Child. Appealed by Respondent Mother.

No. 293P04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Robert W. Ewing, Winston-Salem, for Cassia Barbosa.

Renee S. Alt, for Buncombe Co. DSS.

Judy N. Rudolph, for Guardian ad Litem.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Respondent (Mother) on the 15th day of June 2004 in this matter for a writ of certiorari to review the orders of the North Carolina Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

DENNIS B. ANDERSON,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

TERESA A. SCHWARTZ,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 06-17211

D.C. No. CV-06-02481-THE

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Thelton E. Henderson, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted May 25, 2010** 

Before: CANBY, THOMAS, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

California state prisoner Dennis B. Anderson appeals from the district

court’s judgment denying his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habeas petition. We have

FILED

JUN 21 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
 We certify for appeal, on our own motion, the issues of whether the 2004 1

decision of the California Board of Prison Terms (“the Board”) to deny parole for

four years violated due process, and whether the district court abused its discretion

by denying his motion to alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of

Civil Procedure 59(e) (“Rule 59(e)”).

2 06-17211

jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 2253, and we affirm. 1

Anderson contends that the Board’s 2004 decision to deny him parole was

not supported by “some evidence” and therefore violated his due process rights. 

The state court did not unreasonably conclude that some evidence supports the

Board’s decision. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d); see also Hayward v. Marshall, No. 06-

55392, 2010 WL 1664977, at *11, *17 (9th Cir. Apr. 22, 2010). 

Anderson further argues that the district court erred by denying his motion to

alter or amend its judgment pursuant to Rule 59(e). Because Anderson’s motion

raised an argument for the first time that reasonably could have been raised earlier

in the litigation, the district court did not abuse its discretion by denying the

motion. See McQuillion v. Duncan, 342 F.3d 1012, 1014 (9th Cir. 2003); see also

Carroll v. Nakatani, 342 F.3d 934, 945 (9th Cir. 2003).

Anderson’s claim based on the Board’s decision to defer a subsequent parole

hearing for four years is not cognizable because he failed to raise that claim before
3 06-17211

the district court. See Cacoperdo v. Demosthenes, 37 F.3d 504, 507 (9th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED.
Independent Auditors' Consent



To the Shareholders and Board of Directors of 
Smith Barney California Municipals Fund Inc.:

We consent to the use of our report dated April 15, 1998 for the Smith 
Barney California Municipals Fund Inc., incorporated herein by reference 
and to the references to our Firm under the headings "Financial
Highlights" in the Prospectus and "Counsel and Auditors" in the Statement
of Additional Information.




KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


New York, New York
June 24, 1998
Suzanne BEATENHEAD v. LINCOLN COUNTY, Lincoln County Board of Education, Martin Eaddy, Individually and as a Member of the Lincoln County Board of Education.

No. 105PA04.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 12, 2004.

Ann S. Estridge, Meredith T. Black, Raleigh, for Martin Eaddy.

Suzanne Beatenhead, Pro Se.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th day of March 2004 by Defendant (Martin Eaddy) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 12th day of August 2004."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
CONCERT INVESTMENT SERIES
(the "Trust")

Supplement dated October 13, 1999 to
Select Portfolios Prospectus dated August 18, 1999 (the
"Prospectus")


The following information revises, and to the extent
inconsistent therewith, supersedes, the chart contained in the
Prospectus under the heading "Distributions, Dividends and Taxes."

The portfolios normally pay dividends and distribute capital gains,
if any, as follows:


Fund
Income
Dividend
Distributio
ns
Capital
Gain
Distributio
ns
Distributio
ns
Mostly
From
Emerging Growth
Annually
Annually
Gain
Mid Cap
Annually
Annually
Gain
Growth
Annually
Annually
Gain
Growth and Income
Annually
Annually
Both
Government
Annually
Annually
Income




FD 01713
G:\Fund Accounting\Legal\FUNDS\CIS\1999\SECDOCS\1013sticker.doc
Bradly M. CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. WASHINGTON COUNTY, OREGON, et al.

No. 19-6545

Supreme Court of the United States.

January 13, 2020

Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis* denied, and the petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit dismissed. See Rule 39.8.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7969

WILLIE BRANCH, a/k/a Willie Branch-El,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

OFFICER T. CARRILLO; LT. R. WRIGHT, SHU Lieutenant; OFFICER 

J. DAVIS, SHU Property Officer; KATHRYN JACKSON, Counselor; 

BONNIE HERNANDEZ, Case Manager,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, 

District Judge. (5:15-ct-03170-BO)

Submitted: May 31, 2016 Decided: June 7, 2016

Before DUNCAN and DIAZ, Circuit Judges, and DAVIS, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Willie Branch, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Willie Branch appeals the district court’s order dismissing 

under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) (2012) his complaint filed pursuant 

to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 

403 U.S. 388 (1971), and the Federal Tort Claims Act. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we 

affirm the district court’s judgment. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
STATE of North Carolina v. Marion Edward PEARSON, Jr.

No. 541A01-2.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 24, 2004.

Marion Edward Pearson, Jr., Pro Se.

Robert C. Montgomery, Assistant Attorney General, James C. Gaither, Jr., District Attorney, for State.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 8th day of June 2004 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Burke County:

> "Denied by order of the Court in Conference this the 24th day of June 2004."