alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 205 (Tuesday, October 25, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61696-61697]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21315]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Advisory Committee on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities 
Programs; Notice of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) gives notice under Public 
Law 92-463 (Federal Advisory Committee Act) that the Advisory Committee 
on Prosthetics and Special Disabilities Programs will meet on November 
16-17, 2005, at the Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, 
NW., Washington, DC 20420. On November 16, the session will be held in 
the Omar Bradley Conference Room from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. and on 
November 17, the session will be held in Room 830 from 8:30 a.m. to 12 
noon. The meeting is open to the public.

[[Page 61697]]

    The purpose of the Committee is to advise the Secretary of Veterans 
Affairs on VA's prosthetic programs designed to provide state-of-the-
art prosthetics and the associated rehabilitation research, 
development, and evaluation of such technology. The Committee also 
provides advice to the Secretary on special disability programs which 
are defined as any program administered by the Secretary to serve 
veterans with spinal cord injury, blindness or vision impairment, loss 
of or loss of the use of extremities, deafness or hearing impairment, 
or other serious incapacities in terms of daily life functions.
    On the morning of November 16, the Committee will be briefed by the 
Chief Consultant, Rehabilitation Strategic Healthcare Group, and 
Director, Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation. In the afternoon, the 
Committee will be briefed by the directors of Ophthalmology and 
Optometry and Chief Prosthetics and Clinical Logistics Officer. On the 
morning of November 17, the Committee will be briefed by the Chief 
Research and Development Officer.
    No time will be allocated for receiving oral presentations from the 
public. However, members of the public may direct questions or submit 
written statements for review by the Committee in advance of the 
meeting to Ms. Cynthia Wade, Designated Federal Officer, Veterans 
Health Administration, Patient Care Services, Rehabilitation Strategic 
Healthcare Group (117), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420. Any member of the public wishing to 
attend the meeting should contact Ms. Wade at (202) 273-8485.

    Dated: October 19, 2005.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
E. Philip Riggin,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21315 Filed 10-24-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
|                                           | State or Other  | Date of        |       |
|------------------------------------------------|-----------------|----------------|------------|
|                                           | Jurisdiction of | Incorporation, | Ownership  |
|                                           | Incorporation   | Organization   | (Direct or |
| Subsidiary                                     | or Organization | or Acquisition | Indirect)  |
| 1.Global Oro LLC                               | Delaware        |           | 2003       |   | 100% |   |
| 2.Global Plata LLC                             | Delaware        |           | 2003       |   | 100% |   |
| 3.Global Gold Mining LLC                       | Delaware        |           | 2003       |   | 100% |   |
| 4.Global Gold Hankavan LLC                     | Armenia         |           | 2003       |   | 100% |   |
| 5.Mego-Gold LLC                                | Armenia         |           | 2005       |   | 100% |   |
| 6.Getik Mining Company LLC                     | Armenia         |           | 2006       |   | 100% |   |
| 7.Marjan Mining Company                        | Armenia         |           | 2010       |   | 45% |   |
| 8.Global Gold Uranium LLC                      | Delaware        |           | 2007       |   | 100% |   |
| 9.Global Gold Armenia, LLC                     | Delaware        |           | 2003       |   | 100% |   |
| 10.Minera Global Chile Limitada                | Chile           |           | 2004       |   | 100% |   |
| 11.Compania Minera Global Gold Valdivia S.C.M. | Chile           |           | 2007       |   | 100% |   |
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Majority and

Dissenting Opinion s filed April 9, 2024

.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 24

- 00021

- CV

IN RE MARY RUFFIN , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS County Court No

. 2 Galveston County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CV

- 0091816



### MEMORANDUM DISSENTING OPINION
Persisting in my view that our duty as judges is to reach a decision on the merits based on a proper record and that due process and due course of law require that this court give notice when the original

- proceeding record does not comply with the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, I would give relator ten

- days ’ notice of involuntary dismissal for failure to comply with Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 52.7(a) requiring (1) a certified or sworn copy of every document that is2

material to the relator ’ s claim for relief and that was filed in any underlying proceeding and (2) a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding, including any exhibits offered in evidence, or a statement that no testimony was adduced in connection with the matter complained. Tex. R. App. P. 52.7(a); see In re Kholaif , 624 S.W.3d 228, 231 (order), mand. dism’d , 615 S.W.3d 369 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 2020) (orig. proceeding); see also Tex. R. App. P. 52.3(k)(1) (necessary contents of petition) ; Tex. Civ. Prac. & Crim. Code Ann. § 132.001 (authorizing unsworn declarations). I dissent from the court’s failure to provide notice and an opportunity to cure. I express no opinion on the merits of the petition for a writ of mandamus.

/s Charles A. Spain Justice

Panel c onsists of Justices Jewell, Spain, and Wilson (Spain, J., dissenting)

.
#### STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA v. JAMES C. MOORE

No. 7425SC896

(Filed 5 February 1975)

Criminal Law § 91 — motion for continuance — jurors serving in prior trial of another defendant for same offense

In a prosecution for felonious escape, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in the denial of defendant’s motion for continuance made on the ground that jurors who had just tried another defendant represented by the same attorney and convicted him of escape would be called to sit in the trial of defendant’s case.

*583Appeal by defendant from *Thornburg, Judge,*15 July 1974 Regular Criminal Session of Superior Court held in Catawba County.

By indictment, proper in form, defendant was charged with felonious escape from a unit of the North Carolina Department of Correction, this being a second offense. He pled not guilty, was found guilty as charged, and from judgment imposing prison sentence of two years, to begin at expiration of sentence being served, he appealed.

*Attorney General James H. Carson, Jr., by Deputy Attorney General Robert N. Hunter and Assistant Attorney General Millard R. Rich, Jr., for the State.*

*Cagle and Houck, by William J. Houck, for defendant appellant.*

BRITT, Judge.

The only assignment of error that defendant brings forward and argues in his brief is that the trial judge erred in denying defendant’s motion for a postponement of his trial. The reason stated for the motion was that just before defendant’s case was called for trial, another defendant, represented by the same attorney who represented defendant, had been tried on a charge of escape and convicted; that some of the same jurors who had served in the trial of the other case would be called to serve in the trial of defendant’s case. We find no merit in this assignment.

Rulings on motions for postponement of trials and competency of jurors are discretionary with the trial judge and will not be reviewed absent a showing of abuse of discretion or an error of law. G.S. 9-14; *State v. Watson,*281 N.C. 221, 188 S.E. 2d 289 (1972) ; *State v. Strickland,*229 N.C. 201, 49 S.E. 2d 469 (1948). We hold that under the facts appearing in this case, defendant was not entitled to a continuance as a matter of law and the court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion. *See State v. Martin,*21 N.C. App. 645, 205 S.E. 2d 583 (1974) ; and *State v. Haltom,*19 N.C. App. 646, 199 S.E. 2d 708 (1973).

No error.

Judges Morris and Clark concur.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markm an Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk November 20, 2012

s1113 

# Order

November 20, 2012

145403 & (22)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 145403

COA: 307703

Wayne CC: 07

- 006304

- 01

JUSTIN CHRISTOPHER BLACKSHERE,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 8, 2012 order of

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to

meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). The motion to

remand is DENIED.
----

            COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1010/2004

of 24 May 2004         

establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 of 21 December 1994 on detailed rules for the application of the import arrangements for fruit and vegetables (1), and in particular Article 4(1) thereof,

Whereas:

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

The standard import values referred to in Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 3223/94 shall be fixed as indicated in the Annex hereto.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 25 May 2004.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 24 May 2004.

For the Commission

J. M. SILVA RODRÍGUEZ            

Agriculture Director-General

----

(1)OJ L 337, 24.12.1994, p. 66. Regulation as last amended by Regulation (EC) No 1947/2002 (OJ L 299, 1.11.2002, p. 17).

----

ANNEX

to the Commission Regulation of 24 May 2004 establishing the standard import values for determining the entry price of certain fruit and vegetables

----

(1)  Country nomenclature as fixed by Commission Regulation (EC) No 2081/2003 (OJ L 313, 28.11.2003, p. 11). Code ‘            999            ’ stands for ‘of other origin’.

----
### IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA DA 23 -0415

_________________ IN THE MATTER OF: P.P., A Youth in Need of Care. O R D E R

_________________ Upon Consideration of Appellant Father’s Motion for extension of time to file the opening brief, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant Father is granted an extension of time to and including December 1, 2023, within which to prepare, file, and serve his opening brief on appeal. No further extensions will be granted.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 26 2023

10/26/2023
In the United States Court of Federal Claims 

OFFICE OF SPECIAL MASTERS

No. 19-1547V

UNPUBLISHED

CHASSIE CLEMENS,

 Petitioner,

v.

SECRETARY OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES,

 Respondent.

Chief Special Master Corcoran 

Filed: December 29, 2020

Special Processing Unit (SPU);

Ruling on Entitlement; Concession;

Table Injury; Influenza (Flu) Vaccine;

Guillain-Barre Syndrome (GBS)

David John Carney, Green & Schafle LLC, Philadelphia, PA, for petitioner.

Meghan Murphy, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for respondent.

RULING ON ENTITLEMENT1

On October 3, 2019, Chassie Clemens filed a petition for compensation under the 

National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, 42 U.S.C. §300aa-10, et seq.

2

(the 

“Vaccine Act”). Petitioner alleges that she suffered Guillain-Barre Syndrome (“GBS”) as 

a result of an influenza (“flu”) vaccine administered on October 6, 2016. Petition at 1. The 

case was assigned to the Special Processing Unit of the Office of Special Masters.

On December 28, 2020, Respondent filed his Rule 4(c) report in which he

concedes that Petitioner is entitled to compensation in this case. Respondent’s Rule 4(c) 

Report at 1. Specifically, Respondent states that Petitioner has satisfied the criteria set 

forth in the Vaccine Injury Table (“Table”) and the Qualifications and Aids to Interpretation 

for a flu/GBS Table injury. Id. at 7. Respondent further agrees that Petitioner’s condition 

1 Because this unpublished ruling contains a reasoned explanation for the action in this case, I am required 

to post it on the United States Court of Federal Claims' website in accordance with the E-Government Act 

of 2002. 44 U.S.C. § 3501 note (2012) (Federal Management and Promotion of Electronic Government 

Services). This means the ruling will be available to anyone with access to the internet. In accordance 

with Vaccine Rule 18(b), Petitioner has 14 days to identify and move to redact medical or other information, 

the disclosure of which would constitute an unwarranted invasion of privacy. If, upon review, I agree that 

the identified material fits within this definition, I will redact such material from public access. 

2 National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986, Pub. L. No. 99-660, 100 Stat. 3755. Hereinafter, for ease 

of citation, all “§” references to the Vaccine Act will be to the pertinent subparagraph of 42 U.S.C. § 300aa 

(2012).
2

has persisted for at least six months, and there is no alternative cause that explains her 

condition. Id.

In view of Respondent’s position and the evidence of record, I find that 

Petitioner is entitled to compensation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Brian H. Corcoran

Brian H. Corcoran

Chief Special Master
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1





                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-65977, 333-65979, 333-65983, 333-65985,
333-69253, 333-80953, 333-80955, 333-80957, 333-80951, 333-80959) and on Form
S-3 (No. 333-88573) of Conoco Inc. of our report dated February 16, 2000
relating to the financial statements, which appears in the Annual Report to
Shareholders, which is incorporated in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.



PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS LLP

Houston, Texas
March 10, 2000
#### STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO., Appellant/Cross-Appellee, v. Brenda GULLEDGE and Terry Gulledge, Appellees/Cross-Appellants.

No. 1D02-2822.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 24, 2003.

; Melanie Shaw Seymour and Bobby L. Whitney, Jr., of Seymour *&*Whitney, Fort Walton Beach, for Appellant/Cross-Appel-lee.

Woodburn S. Wesley, Jr., and Arthur H. Lester of Woodburn S. Wesley *&*Associates, Fort Walton Beach, for Appel-lees/Cross-Appellants.

PER CURIAM.

We affirm without comment all issues raised by appellant/cross-appellee, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., and appellees/cross-appellants, Brenda and Terry Gulledge, in this appeal and cross-appeal from a final judgment entered in this action for uninsured motorist benefits, except that relating to the lower court’s error in denying State Farm’s motion to reduce Brenda Gulledge’s damage award for past lost earning ability by the amount of Social Security disability payments she received as a result of her accidental injuries. As to this issue, we reverse and remand the case to the trial court with directions that the amount so paid be deducted from the sum awarded.

In defending the trial court’s decision, the Gulledges contend the collateral-source setoff statute1 is inapplicable, because they claimed loss of earning capacity, not lost wages. We cannot agree. A plain reading of the statute offers no support for the distinction the Gulledges argue. In*632deed, they cite no case law supporting their argument.

AFFIRMED in part, REVERSED in part, and REMANDED.

WOLF, C.J., ERVIN and BENTON, JJ., concur.

1

. Section 768.76(2)(a)(l), Florida Statutes (1997) provides in part:

> (1) In any action to which this part applies in which liability is admitted or is determined by the trier of fact and in which damages are awarded to compensate the claimant for losses sustained, the court shall reduce the amount of such award by the total of all amounts which have been paid for the benefit of the claimant, or which are otherwise available to the claimant, from all collateral sources....

> (2) For purposes of this section:

> (a) "Collateral sources” means any payments made to the claimant, or made on the claimant's behalf, by or pursuant to:

> 1. The United States Social Security Act, except Title XVIII and Title XIX; any federal, state, or local income disability act; or any other public programs providing medical expenses, disability payments, or other similar benefits....
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 MORTGAGE ELECTRONIC INC.,

3 COUNTRYWIDE HOME LOANS INC.,

4 Plaintiffs-Appellees,

5 v. NO. 29,167

6 MIGUEL and INGA GUTIERREZ,

7 Defendants-Appellants.

8 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY

9 James Waylon Counts, District Judge

10 Clinton W. Marrs

11 Albuquerque, NM

12 for Appellees

13 Miguel Gutierrez

14 Inga Gutierrez

15 La Luz, NM

16 Pro Se Appellants

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 KENNEDY, Judge.

19 Defendants appeal the district court’s denial of their 60(B) motion. We

20 proposed to affirm. Plaintiff filed a memorandum in support of our proposal.

21 Defendants have not responded to our proposal and the time for doing so has passed.
2

1 Therefore, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in the calendar notice.

2 IT IS SO ORDERED.

3 __________________________________

4 RODERICK T. KENNEDY, Judge 

5 WE CONCUR:

6 ________________________________

7 MICHAEL D. BUSTAMANTE, Judge

8 ________________________________

9 TIMOTHY L. GARCIA, Judge
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Annual report on Form 10-KSB of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund VIII, LLC, (the Company) for the period ended December 31, 2006 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Dean L. Cash, President and Chief Executive
Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC, Managing Member of the Company, hereby certify that:



|1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                        |  | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: July 23, 2007                                                                     |  | 
|                                                                                        | 
|/s/ Dean L. Cash                                                                        |  | 
|Dean L. Cash                                                                            |  | 
|President and Chief Executive Officer of ATEL Financial Services, LLC (Managing Member) |  |
Exhibit 32.1







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In connection with the quarterly report of Otelco Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael D. Weaver, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:




1.
The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







/s/ Michael D. WeaverMichael D. WeaverChief Executive OfficerAugust 5, 2010
<PAGE>
                                                                 EXHIBIT 10.4(b)

                              [AspenBio Letterhead]

                                 March __, 2002



Gregory Pusey
President
Cambridge Holdings, Ltd.
106 S. University Blvd. Unit 14
Denver, CO  80209

Re:     Consulting Agreement by and between AspenBio, Inc. (the "Company") and
        Cambridge Holdings, Ltd. dated December 28, 2001 (the "Consulting
        Agreement")


Dear Greg:

        Section 1 of the Consulting Agreement provides that the Consulting
Agreement may be terminated by the mutual agreement of the parties. Because the
Company considers all of the terms of the Consulting Agreement to have been
fulfilled to its satisfaction, the Company proposes that the Consulting
Agreement hereby terminate effective as of the date indicated below. In
addition, the Company proposes that the risk of forfeiture provided for in
Section 3 of the Consulting Agreement shall be lifted as of the same date.

        Please indicate your acceptance of the proposals in this letter by
signing in space provided below.

                                            Very truly yours,

                                            ASPENBIO, INC.


                                            Roger Hurst
                                            President


AGREED AND ACCEPTED EFFECTIVE THIS __ DAY OF MARCH, 2002:


-------------------------
Gregory Pusey
President
Cambridge Holdings, Ltd.