alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60545]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20745]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; 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 Child Health and Human 
Development Special Emphasis Panel, Neonatal Research Network.
    Date: November 3-4, 2005.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn Select Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Ave, 
Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Rita Anand, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Blvd. Room 
5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 496-1487, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#53323d323d3721133e323a3f7d3d3a3b7d343c25"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a0b040b040e182a070b030644040302440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
Population Research; 93.865, Research for Mothers and Children; 
93.929, Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research; 93.209, 
Contraception and Infertility Loan Repayment Program, National 
Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 5, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-20745 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60543]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20733]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering; 
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 Biomedical Imaging and 
Bioengineering Special Emphasis Panel, NIH-NIBIB P01-J1 Review 
Meeting.
    Date: November 30, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 1:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda Park Hotel, 8400 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD 
20814.
    Contact Person: Prabha L. Atreya, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Office of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 
496-8633, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dabbaea8bfa3bbaaa89ab7bbb3b6f4b4b3b2f4bdb5ac"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a3c2d7d1c6dac2d3d1e3cec2cacf8dcdcacb8dc4ccd5">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: October 6, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-20733 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                               .
                                                                               .
                                                                               .

                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY

<Table>
<Caption>
                                                                              OTHER NAME, IF ANY,
                                           STATE OR OTHER JURISDICTION        THAT THE SUBSIDIARY
NAME                                            OF INCORPORATION              DOES BUSINESS UNDER
----                                       ---------------------------        -------------------
<S>                                        <C>                           <C>
BowSteel Corporation                             Delaware

BowSteel of Texas Corporation                    Delaware

Earthline Technologies, Inc.                       Ohio

ETCA G.P., L.L.C.                                 Texas

ETCA L.P., Inc.                                  Delaware

Extrusion Technology Corporation of
  America                                          Ohio

Galt Alloys, Inc.                                  Ohio

NATI Gas Company                                   Ohio

New Century Metals, Inc.                           Ohio

New Century Metals Southeast, Inc.               Delaware                New Century Metals and RTI LA

Pierce-Spafford Metals Company, Inc.            California

Reamet, S.A.                                      France

RMI Delaware, Inc.                               Delaware

RMI Metals, Inc.                                   Utah                  Micron Metals, Inc.

RMI Titanium Company                               Ohio

RMI Titanium International, Inc.                 Barbados

RTI Commercial Products, Inc.                      Ohio

RTI Energy Systems, Inc.                           Ohio

RTI Europe Ltd.                               United Kingdom

RTI Fabrications, L.P.                            Texas

RTI Fabrication & Distribution, Inc.               Ohio

RTI France S.A.S.                                 France

RTI International Metals Gmbh                    Germany

RTI International Metals Limited              United Kingdom

RTI International Metals Srl                      Italy

RTI St. Louis, Inc.                              Missouri

Tradco, Inc.                                     Missouri

Weld-Tech Engineering Services, L.P.              Texas                  RTI Energy Systems

Weld-Tech G.P., Inc.                              Texas

Weld-Tech L.P., Inc.                             Delaware
</Table>
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA 

FIFTH DISTRICT 

 NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

 FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

 DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED 

DUANE JOSEPH McCOY, JR., 

Appellant, 

v. Case No. 5D16-3906

STATE OF FLORIDA, 

Appellee. 

________________________________/ 

Opinion filed August 18, 2017 

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

James H. Earp, Judge.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and 

Nicole J. Martingano , Assistant Public 

Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Deborah A. Chance, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM. 

Duane Joseph McCoy, Jr., appeals the trial court's order revoking his probation. 

We affirm the judgment and sentence without further discussion. However, we note that, 

although the trial court orally announced the conditions of probation McCoy violated, it 

did not specify those conditions in its written order. We remand this case to the trial court 
to enter a corrected order identifying the conditions McCoy violated. See Lewis v. State, 

8 So. 3d 370, 371 (Fla. 5th DCA 2009); Payne v. State, 920 So. 2d 742, 743 (Fla. 5th 

DCA 2006). 

 AFFIRMED and REMANDED with Instructions. 

PALMER, WALLIS and LAMBERT, JJ., concur. 

2
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 200 (Tuesday, October 18, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 60598]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-20847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration


Public Notice for a Change in Use of Aeronautical Property at 
Addington Field, Elizabethtown, KY

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Request for Public Comment.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of Title 49, U.S.C. 47153(c), the Federal 
Aviation Administration is requesting public comment on the 
Elizabethtown Airport Board's request to change a portion (0.069 acres) 
of airport property from aeronautical use to non-aeronautical use. The 
property is to be sold to The Commonwealth of Kentucky for the widening 
of Kentucky State Highway 1357 (St. John Road).
    The 0.069 acres is located approximately 2600 feet northeast of 
Addington Field Airport Runway 23, at the intersection of St. John and 
Ring Roads.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 17, 2005.

ADDRESSES: Comments on this notice may be mailed or delivered in 
triplicate to the FAA at the following address: Memphis Airports 
District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, Building G, Memphis, TN 
38118-1555.
    In addition, one copy of any comments submitted to the FAA must be 
mailed or delivered to Mr. Joseph B. Yates, Chairman, Elizabethtown 
Airport Board at the following address: 1828 Kitty Hawk Drive, 
Elizabethtown, Kentucky 42701.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tommy L. Depree, Airports Program 
Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, 2862 Business Park Drive, 
Building G, Memphis, TN 38118-1555, (901) 322-8185. The application may 
be reviewed in person at this same location.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA is reviewing a request by 
Elizabethtown Airport Board to release 0.069 acres of aeronautical 
property at Addington Field, Elizabethtown, Kentucky. The property will 
be purchased by The Commonwealth of Kentucky for the widening of State 
Highway 1357 (St. John Road).
    A detailed legal description of the property proposed for release 
can be requested or seen at either of the contacts given above. 
However, the general description is the 0.069 acres is located 
approximately 2600 feet northeast of Addington Field Airport Runway 23, 
at the intersection of St. John and Ring Roads.
    The net proceeds from the non-aeronautical use or the sale of this 
property will be used for airport purposes.
    Any person may inspect the request in person at the FAA office 
listed above under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. In addition, any 
person may, upon request, inspect the request, notice and other 
documents germane to the request in person at the Elizabethtown Airport 
Board.

    Issued in Memphis, Tennessee on October 11, 2005.
Charles L. Harris,
Acting Manager, Memphis Airports District Office, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 05-20847 Filed 10-17-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION

I, Adam Shaffer,certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this
report on Form 10-Q/A of eCOST.com, Inc.;
and

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





|Date:  November 17, 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ Adam Shaffer
        Adam Shaffer
Chief Executive Officer
|------------------------ |  |  |  | -------------------------------------------------------------
111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 509 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 2004, 

and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 509 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Marine Turtle Con3 servation Reauthorization Act of 2009’’. 

4 SEC. 2. AMENDMENTS TO PROVISIONS PREVENTING FUND5 ING OF PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—The Marine Turtle Conservation 

7 Act of 2004 is amended— 

8 (1) in section 2(b) (16 U.S.C. 6601(b)), by 

9 striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; 

10 (2) in section 3(2) (16 U.S.C. 6602(2))— 

11 (A) in the matter preceding subparagraph 

12 (A), by striking ‘‘in foreign countries’’; and 

13 (B) in subparagraph (D), by striking ‘‘of 

14 foreign countries’’; and 

15 (3) in section 4 (16 U.S.C. 6603)— 

16 (A) in subsection (b)(1)(A), by inserting 

17 ‘‘State or’’ before ‘‘foreign country’’; and 

18 (B) in subsection (d), by striking ‘‘in for19 eign countries’’. 

20 (b) STATE DEFINED.—Section 3 of such Act (16 

21 U.S.C. 6602) is amended by adding at the end the fol22 lowing new paragraph: 

23 ‘‘(7) STATE.—The term ‘State’ means each of 

24 the several States of the United States, the District 

25 of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

26 Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Com-
3 

•HR 509 EH

1 monwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, any 

2 other territory or possession of the United States, 

3 and any Indian tribe.’’. 

4 SEC. 3. LIMITATIONS ON EXPENDITURES. 

5 Section 5(b) of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act 

6 of 2004 (16 U.S.C. 6604(b)) is amended— 

7 (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ‘‘$80,000’’ 

8 and inserting ‘‘$150,000’’; and 

9 (2) by adding at the end the following new 

10 paragraph: 

11 ‘‘(3) LIMITATION ON PROJECTS IN THE UNITED

12 STATES.—Not more than 20 percent of the amounts 

13 made available from the Fund for any fiscal year 

14 may be used for projects relating to the conservation 

15 of marine turtles in the United States.’’. 

16 SEC. 4. REAUTHORIZATION OF THE MARINE TURTLE CON17 SERVATION ACT OF 2004. 

18 Section 7 of the Marine Turtle Conservation Act of 

19 2004 (16 U. S. C. 6606) is amended by striking ‘‘each 
4 

•HR 509 EH

1 of fiscal years 2005 through 2009’’ and inserting ‘‘each 

2 of fiscal years 2009 through 2014’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives July 28, 2009. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 509 

AN ACT 

To reauthorize the Marine Turtle Conservation Act 

of 2004, and for other purposes.
#### Terrance LESTER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2D01-2549.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 11, 2003.

James Marion Moorman, Public Defender, and Clark E. Green, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow, for Appellant.

Charles = J- Crist, Jr., Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Anne S. Weiner, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appel-lee.

FULMER, Judge.

Terrance Lester appeals from the revocation of his community control in four cases, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the sentences imposed. We affirm the revocation but reverse and remand for resentencing.

After filing his notice of appeal, Lester filed a motion for correction of sentence pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.800(b)(2), challenging the constitutionality of the 1995 sentencing guidelines and requesting the trial court to strike the prison sentences erroneously imposed for two misdemeanor counts. Lester had previously served jail sentences on the misdemeanor counts and those counts should not have been at issue during the revocation of community control proceedings. The trial court denied the motion. In so doing, the court noted that the misdemeanor sentences were corrected when Lester was resentenced on August 28, 2001.

We reverse the trial court’s order denying the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion. The State concedes that the trial court was without jurisdictional authority to conduct a resen-tencing hearing on August 28, 2001, which was after the notice of appeal was filed but before the rule 3.800(b)(2) motion was filed. The August 28, 2001, sentencing documents, which the trial court attached to its order, are a nullity.

Because Lester’s felony offenses occurred on April 1 and 5, 1996, Lester may be entitled to relief under *Heggs v. State,*759 So.2d 620 (Fla.2000), if the sentences imposed for his felony offenses would be departure sentences under the 1994 guidelines. We direct the trial court on remand *336to reconsider Lester’s sentence^ in accordance with *Heggs. See Smith v. State,*761 So.2d 419 (Fla. 2d DCA 2000). We also direct the trial court to strike the sentences imposed for the misdemeanor offenses.

Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded with directions.

ALTENBERND, C.J., and KELLY, J„ Concur.
No. 85-1537.

#### Muka *v.*Carter, Chief Disciplinary Counsel.

Appeal from Sup. Ct. R. I. dismissed for want of substantial federal question.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4981 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4981

   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a religious 
  exception to the requirement that certain tax return preparers file 
                       returns on magnetic media.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 25, 2010

    Mr. Peterson (for himself, Mr. Walz, Mr. Pence, Mr. Pitts, Mr. 
Loebsack, and Mr. Luetkemeyer) introduced the following bill; which was 
              referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a religious 
  exception to the requirement that certain tax return preparers file 
                       returns on magnetic media.

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

SECTION 1. RELIGIOUS EXCEPTION TO MAGNETIC MEDIA FILING REQUIREMENT.

    (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 6011(e) of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
                    ``(D) Exemption for religious reasons.--The 
                Secretary may exempt from the requirement of 
                subparagraph (A) any tax return preparer who--
                            ``(i) is a member of a recognized religious 
                        sect or division thereof, and
                            ``(ii) is an adherent of established tenets 
                        or teachings of such sect or division by reason 
                        of which the preparer is conscientiously 
                        opposed to using magnetic media.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply 
to returns filed after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### MANUFACTURERS HANOVER INTERNATIONAL BANKING CORP., Plaintiff, v. SPRING TREE CORPORATION, Defendant.

Civ. A. No. 89-0176-MC.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts.

Dec. 27, 1990.

Michael B. Roitman, Robert L. Caporale, Erik J. Frick, Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

*523Harvey Bagg, Shea & Gould, New York City, Edward Robinson, Gaston & Snow, Boston, Mass., for defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON COUNTS I & II AND DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT ON COUNTS I, II & III

McNAUGHT, District Judge.

This matter comes before the Court on plaintiff’s and defendant’s cross motions for summary judgment on Counts I and II of the Complaint in accordance with Fed.R. Civ.P., Rule 56(c).

The underlying lawsuit involves a dispute regarding an international letter of credit transaction. In May, 1988, the defendant, a Vermont corporation, contracted to sell cocoa to Summer Commodities Trading Limited, a Hong Kong organization. The Hua Chiao Commercial Bank Ltd. of Hong Kong (“HCCB”) issued the letter of credit in dispute which provides that Citibank will be the advising bank. At defendant’s request, plaintiff agreed to act as negotiating bank.

After final shipment, defendant delivered a draft to plaintiff for the full amount of the letter of credit, along with the required supporting documents. Subsequently plaintiff transmitted the documents to HCCB, allegedly disclaiming any responsibility for their validity or accuracy. Upon receipt of reimbursement from Citibank, plaintiff issued a check for $81,886.69 to defendant. HCCB, the issuing bank, refused to accept the documents claiming that they did not conform exactly to the terms of the letter of credit and declined to reimburse plaintiff. In turn, plaintiff so notified defendant and requested return of the advanced proceeds.

The issue before the Court is whether plaintiff negotiating bank or defendant beneficiary should bear the financial cost of a Letter of Credit dispute. Pursuant to U.C.C. § 5-111, plaintiff had the right to rely on defendant’s warranty that the documents defendant submitted were in compliance with the requirements stated in the Letter of Credit. As negotiating bank, plaintiff has recourse against defendant beneficiary for proceeds advanced to the beneficiary, where the issuing bank dishonored the draft because of defects in the supporting documents. Defendant must reimburse the proceeds advanced by plaintiff, notwithstanding any dispute between the issuing bank and defendant as to whether issuing bank’s dishonor was proper. *Delta Brands Inc. v. Mbank Dallas N.A.,*3 U.C.C. Rep.Serv.2d 1099, 1101-02, 719 S.W.2d 355 (Tex.App.1986); *First Nat’l. City Bank v. Klatzer,*28 U.C.C.Rep. Serv. 497, 498 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1979).

For the foregoing reasons the plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment on Counts I and II of the Complaint is granted and, the defendant’s motions, are hereby denied.