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

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 213 (Friday, November 4, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 67183]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21998]

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

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, Improving Blastocyst Inner Cell 
Mass Viability.
    Date: November 16, 2005.
    Time: 10 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference Call).
    Contact Person: Jon M. Ranhand, PhD, Scientist Review 
Administrator, Division of Scientific Review, National Institute of 
Child Health and Human Development, NIH, 6100 Executive Boulevard, 
Room 5B01, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 435-6884, 
[email protected].
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.864, 
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 28, 2005.
Anthony M. Coelho, Jr.,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-21998 Filed 11-3-05; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
```
IIB 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5395 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JULY 12, 2010 

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

AN ACT 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in Maitland, Florida, as the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

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


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
2 

HR 5395 RFS

1 SECTION 1. PAULA HAWKINS POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

2 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

3 Postal Service located at 151 North Maitland Avenue in 

4 Maitland, Florida, shall be known and designated as the 

5 ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post Office Building’’. 

6 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg7 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

8 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

9 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Paula Hawkins Post 

10 Office Building’’. 

Passed the House of Representatives June 30, 2010. 

Attest: LORRAINE C. MILLER, 

Clerk. 


srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with BILLS
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.M., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Grand Rapids, MI, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0997

Issued: February 7, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On June 15, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported May 25, 2022 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP).1 The Clerk of the Appellate Boards 

assigned Docket No. 22-0997.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that the Board has jurisdiction to 

review final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation Act.2 

This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of the date 

appellant filed the appeal.3 On May 25, 2022 OWCP issued a notice of proposed termination of 

compensation. The May 25, 2022 notice did not constitute a final adverse decision. It had not 

issued a final decision regarding the termination of compensation as of June 15, 2022, the date 

appellant filed her appeal. Section 501.2 (c)(2) of the Board’s Rules of Procedure provides: 

“There will be no appeal with respect to any interlocutory matter decided (or not decided) by 

1 Appellant noted the date of the purported decision on appeal as June 25, 2022. However, as she filed her appeal 

on June 15, 2022 it appears that the appeal was from a May 25, 2022 notice of proposed termination. 

2 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

3 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”
2

OWCP during the pendency of a case.”

4

 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not 

contain a final adverse decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of 

the current appeal.5 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board 

may properly exercise jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 

22-0997 must be dismissed.6 Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 22-0997 is 

dismissed.

Issued: February 7, 2023

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

Id. at § 501.2(c)(2).

5

Id.

6 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” 20 

C.F.R. § 501.6(d).
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

WILLIE EARL GREER,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-10-00012-CR

Appeal from

 Criminal District Court

of Jefferson County, Texas

(TC # 08-03862)

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Willie Earl Greer appeals his conviction for burglary of a building. The trial court placed

Appellant on deferred adjudication community supervision for term of five years. The State

subsequently filed a motion to revoke alleging a violation of the terms and conditions of community

supervision. Based on Appellant’s plea of true, the trial court granted the State’s motion, adjudicated

Appellant guilty, and assessed his punishment at confinement in the state jail nine months. We

affirm.

Appellant’s court-appointed counsel has filed a brief in which he has concluded that the

appeal is wholly frivolous and without merit. The brief meets the requirements of Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, reh. denied, 388 U.S. 924, 87 S.Ct. 2094,

18 L.Ed.2d 1377 (1967), by presenting a professional evaluation of the record demonstrating why,

in effect, there are no arguable grounds to be advanced. See High v. State, 573 S.W.2d 807

(Tex.Crim.App. 1978); Currie v. State, 516 S.W.2d 684 (Tex.Crim.App. 1974); Jackson v. State,

485 S.W.2d 553 (Tex.Crim.App. 1972); Gainous v. State, 436 S.W.2d 137 (Tex.Crim.App. 1969). 

A copy of counsel’s brief has been delivered to Appellant, and Appellant has been advised of his
right to examine the appellate record and file a pro se brief. No pro se brief has been filed.

We have carefully reviewed the record and counsel’s brief, and agree that the appeal is

wholly frivolous and without merit. Further, we find nothing in the record that might arguably

support the appeal. The judgment is affirmed.

October 13, 2010 

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Justice

Before Chew, C.J., McClure, and Rivera, JJ.

(Do Not Publish)
In the Interest of M.D.J., M.D.J.

and M.D.J.

§ From the 69th District Court

 Of Moore County

 07-06-00447-CV § June 5, 2007

§ Opinion by Chief Justice Quinn

J U D G M E N T

Pursuant to the opinion of the Court dated June 5, 2007, it is ordered, adjudged

and decreed that this appeal be dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

It is further ordered, adjudged and decreed that appellant Michael Jones pay all

costs occasioned by this appeal, for which let execution issue.

It is further ordered that this decision be certified below for observance.

 oOo
#### TOWNSEND v. FRYE

No. 63 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 634.

Petition by plaintiffs for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 4 November 1976.
#### COMR. OF INSURANCE v. MOTORS INSURANCE CORP. ET AL

No. 61 PC.

Case below: 30 N.C. App. 596.

Petition by defendants for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 allowed 4 November 1976.
#### VIRGINIA A. SCHRYVER, Appellant, v. JAMES B. SCHRYVER, Respondent.

No. 21888

March 5, 1992

826 P.2d 569

*Silverman & DeCaria*and *Jarold Young,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Dyer & McDonald,*and *Valerie J. Cooney,*Carson City, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from an order of the district court dismissing a motion for modification of spousal support. On May 3, 1983, Virginia and James Schryver were divorced. The district court approved a written settlement agreement between Virginia and James, and incorporated the agreement into the decree of divorce. The agreement provided that James was to pay Virginia $1,200 a month in alimony beginning on October 1, 1982, and continuing for a period of eight years.

September of 1990 was to be the last month that James was required to make payments under the decree. At the beginning of the month, James sent Virginia a check in the amount of $1,000. A few days later he sent her a check in the amount of $200. Subsequently, on September 13, 1990, Virginia filed a motion pursuant to NRS 125.150(7)1 to modify the alimony payments. *191She requested that the payments be increased and extended for the remainder of her life.

On December 12, 1990, the district court entered an order dismissing Virginia’s motion for modification. Although the district court did not specify its reasons for the dismissal, both parties to this appeal assume that the district court concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Virginia’s motion.

Virginia contends in this appeal that although James may have made his final alimony payment at the beginning of the month, the actual term of support did not end until September 30, 1990. Therefore, because she filed her motion on September 13, 1990, she asserts that the district court had jurisdiction to consider it.

The issue presented is one of first impression in Nevada. We have considered the conflicting authorities from other jurisdictions and have concluded that Virginia’s argument has merit. Because Virginia’s motion was filed within the period of support as contemplated by the divorce decree, it was timely. *See*Pujals v. Pujals, 414 So.2d 228 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1982) (motion to extend alimony was timely even though it was filed on the last day of the period of support, after the final payment had been made). To hold otherwise would allow a payor spouse to deprive the court of jurisdiction simply by making advance payments.

Accordingly, we reverse the order of the district court dismissing the motion for modification, and we remand for further proceedings.

1

 NRS 125.150(7) provides that:

> If a decree of divorce, or an agreement between the parties which was ratified, adopted or approved in a decree of divorce, provides for *191specified periodic payments of alimony, the decree or agreement is not subject to modification by the court as to accrued payments. Payments pursuant to a decree entered on or after July 1, 1975, which have not accrued at the time a motion for modification is filed may be modified upon a showing of changed circumstances, whether or not the court has expressly retained jurisdiction for the modification.
```

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 206 (Wednesday, October 26, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 61842]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21363]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Clean Air Act

    Under 28 CFR 50.7, notice is hereby given that on October 12, 2005, 
a proposed consent decree in United States v. ARCO Terminal Services 
Corp., Case No. 05-07358, was lodged with the United States District 
Court for the Central District of California.
    In this action, the United States sought injunctive relief and 
civil penalties under Section 113 of the Clean Air Act (``CAA''), 
against ARCO Terminal Services Corp. (``ATSC'') for failure to use the 
required control equipment to control emissions that resulted in 294 
separate loading events that were subject to the control requirements 
of Rule 1142 at its marine loading facility in Long Beach, California. 
The Consent Decree requires ATSC to employ its existing control 
technology on all loading events subject to the requirements of Rule 
1142 and to pay a civil penalty of $225,000.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the consent 
decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General, 
Environment and Natural Resources Division, P.O. Box 7611, U.S. 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20044-7611, and should refer to 
United States v. ARCO Terminal Services Corp., D.J. Ref. 90-5-
2-1-06988.
    The proposed Consent Decree may be examined during the public 
comment period on the following United States Department of Justice Web 
site: http://www.usdoj.gov/enrd/open.html. A copy of the Consent Decree 
may also be obtained by mail from the Consent Decree Library, U.S. 
Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, 
DC 20044-7611, or by faxing or E-mailing a request to Tonia Fleetwood 
([email protected]), fax number (202) 514-0097, phone 
confirmation number (202) 514-1547. When requesting a copy from the 
Consent Decree Library, please enclose a check, payable to the U.S. 
Treasury, in the amount of $12.25 ($.25 per page reproduction cost.

Ellen M. Mahan,
Assistant Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 05-21363 Filed 10-25-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
```
DENY; and Opinion Filed August 25, 2014.

S

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-14-01053-CV

IN RE 3334-3336 ROSEDALE, LLC, Relator

Original Proceeding from the 193rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-14-05776

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Fillmore, Evans, and Lewis

Opinion by Justice Lewis

Relator filed this petition for writ of mandamus requesting that the Court order the trial 

court to vacate its July 25, 2014 order denying its motion to expunge the lis pendens filed by real 

parties in interest. The facts are well-known to the parties, so we do not recount them here. 

Ordinarily, to obtain mandamus relief, a relator must show both that the trial court has clearly 

abused its discretion and that relator has no adequate appellate remedy. In re Prudential Ins. 

Co., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135–36 (Tex. 2004) (orig. proceeding). Because relator has failed to 

establish its right to mandamus relief, we DENY the petition for writ of mandamus. TEX. R.

APP. P. 52.8(a). 

141053F.P05

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
Exhibit 10.13

September 9,
2004

Vistula
Communications Services, Inc.
40 Portman Square, 4th Floor
London W1H 6LT
United Kingdom

Gentlemen:

Reference
is made to the Distribution and Marketing Agreement (the "Agreement"), dated as of August 11, 2004, by and among NetYantra Inc. ("NetYantra US"), NetYantra India
Pvt. Ltd (collectively with NetYantra US, "NetYantra") and Vistula Communications Services, Inc. (the "Company"). Pursuant to Section 13.2 of the Agreement and for good and
valuable consideration, including the agreement by the Company to pay NetYantra the amount of $25,000 in addition to the Initial Payment (defined below) and to issue 50,000 shares of the Company's
common stock to NetYantra US, NetYantra hereby agrees (a) to waive the obligations of the Company under Section 6.2.1 of the Agreement for a period of thirty-five
(35) days with the effect that the Company will instead now be required to pay to NetYantra the sum of $150,000 (the "Initial Payment") in one or more payments on or before October 15,
2004 (the "New Payment Date"); and (b) that the Agreement shall not terminate pursuant to the last sentence of Section 9.2 of the Agreement except in the event that the Company fails to
pay the Initial Payment to NetYantra in one or more payments on or before the New Payment Date. NetYantra acknowledges and agrees that it has already received the sum of $50,000 from the Company as
partial payment of the Initial Payment.

This
letter agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original and all of which together constitute one and the same document. Faxed signatures
shall have the same binding effect as original signatures.

| |  | Very truly yours,
| |  | -----------------
| |  | NetYantra Inc.   
| |  | By:              

| |  | NetYantra India Pvt. Ltd
| |  | ------------------------
| |  | By:                     

Agreed
to and accepted:

Vistula Communications Services, Inc.

|By: |  | /s/RUPERT GALLIERS-PRATTName: Rupert Galliers-Pratt
Title: Chairman |  | /s/CHRISTOPHER S. BURKEChristopher S. Burke
Chief Executive Officer and President
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
EXHIBIT 10.20


 


Humanigen, Inc.


 


Compensation for Non-employee Directors


 


 


Pursuant to our Director Compensation
Program, each director serving on our Board during 2021 who was not our employee was eligible to compensation for his or her
service, as follows. Until the fourth quarter of 2021, such fees were payable in cash. Commencing in the fourth quarter of 2021, at
the option of the director, such fees were payable in cash, common stock or immediately exercisable stock options having a grant
date fair value equal to the equivalent cash compensation owed.


 


		·	Board of Directors member: $40,000;



		·	Audit committee member: $10,000;



		·	Audit committee chair: $20,000;



		·	Compensation committee member: $6,000;



		·	Compensation committee chair: $12,000;



		·	Nominating and corporate governance committee
member: $4,000;



		·	Nominating and corporate governance committee
chair: $8,000; and



		·	Transaction committee (disbanded in July 2020)
member: $12,000. 



 


Directors are reimbursed for their reasonable expenses
of attending Board and committee meetings held in person.
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 212 (Thursday, November 3, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 66864]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-21944]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Federal Council on the Arts and the Humanities Arts and Artifacts 
Indemnity Panel Advisory Committee; Notice of Meeting

    Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
(Pub. L. 92-463 as amended) notice is hereby given that a meeting of 
the Arts and Artifacts Indemnity Panel of the Federal Council on the 
Arts and the Humanities will be held at 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 
Washington, DC 20506, in Room 730, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., on Monday, 
November 14, 2005.
    The purpose of the meeting is to review applications for 
Certificates of Indemnity submitted to the Federal Council on the Arts 
and the Humanities for exhibitions beginning after January 1, 2006.
    Because the proposed meeting will consider financial and commercial 
data and because it is important to keep values of objects, methods of 
transportation and security measures confidential, pursuant to the 
authority granted me by the Chairman's Delegation of Authority to Close 
Advisory Committee Meetings, dated July 19, 1993, I have determined 
that the meeting would fall within exemption (4) of 5 U.S.C. 552(b) and 
that it is essential to close the meeting to protect the free exchange 
of views and to avoid interference with the operations of the 
Committee.
    It is suggested that those desiring more specific information 
contact Advisory Committee Management Officer, Michael McDonald, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506, or call 202/606-8322.

Michael McDonald,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 05-21944 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P