alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1998
<CASH>                                           2,457,213
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   28,690,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                       748,886
<INVENTORY>                                     18,904,694
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                53,715,371
<PP&E>                                          84,207,825
<DEPRECIATION>                                  37,026,644
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 123,001,032
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           22,144,839
<BONDS>                                         17,400,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        11,865,004
<OTHER-SE>                                      62,588,154
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   123,001,032
<SALES>                                        136,805,813
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               136,805,813
<CGS>                                          103,503,505
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  103,503,505
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                25,685,232
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,016,053
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,535,414
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,105,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              3,430,414
<DISCONTINUED>                                  (1,368,278)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,062,136
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          .35
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          .35
        


</TABLE>
1

The Honorable David S. Doty, United States District Judge for the District of

Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 02-1399

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Reut Bustos-Hernandez, * [UNPUBLISHED]

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: December 13, 2002

 Filed: December 18, 2002

___________

Before WOLLMAN, MORRIS SHEPPARD ARNOLD, and RILEY, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Reut Bustos-Hernandez pleaded guilty to conspiring to distribute and possess

with intent to distribute more than 500 grams of a substance containing

methamphetamine, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1), 841(b)(1)(A), and 846, and

the district court1

 sentenced him to 70 months of imprisonment and 3 years of

supervised release. On appeal, counsel has moved to withdraw under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and has filed a brief arguing that the sentence
-2-

exceeds what is reasonable for a first-time offender with a minor role in the offense,

and that a condition of supervised release requiring Bustos-Hernandez to report to the

United States Probation Office if he reenters the United States after being deported

violates his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

Bustos-Hernandez is foreclosed from challenging the length of his sentence,

as he was sentenced within the Guidelines range to which he stipulated in his plea

agreement. See United States v. Nguyen, 46 F.3d 781, 783 (8th Cir. 1995) (defendant

who explicitly and voluntarily exposes himself to specific sentence may not challenge

that punishment on appeal). We further find that the district court’s imposition of the

supervised-release condition, which Bustos-Hernandez did not challenge below, was

not plain error. See United States v. Sun Bear, 307 F.3d 747, 750 (8th Cir. 2002)

(argument not raised below is reviewed for plain error); United States v. Montanye,

996 F.2d 190, 192 (8th Cir. 1993) (to be “plain,” error must be “clear under current

law”).

Following our independent review, see Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75 (1988), we

find no nonfrivolous issues. Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 1 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 2 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 3 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 4 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 5 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 6 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 7 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 8 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 9 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 10 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 11 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 12 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 13 of 14
Case 1:07-cv-03580-DLC Document 6-2 Filed 05/17/2007 Page 14 of 14
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

September 24, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

134011 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

Robert P. Young, Jr. JUNE UMBARGER, Personal Representative of Stephen J. Markman, the Estate of Orpha Tower, Deceased, Justices Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 134011 

 COA: 264699 

Eaton CC: 04-001695-NO 

HAYES GREEN BEACH MEMORIAL 

HOSPITAL CORPORATION, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 1, 2007 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, it appearing to this Court that the 

case of Mullins v St Joseph Mercy Hospital (Docket No. 131879) is pending on appeal 

before this Court and that the decision in that case may resolve an issue raised in the 

present application for leave to appeal, we ORDER that the application be held in 

ABEYANCE pending the decision in that case. 

t0917 

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. 

September 24, 2007 

 Clerk
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 Annual Report of William Lyon Homes (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William Lyon, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 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 result of operations of the Company.



/s/    WILLIAM LYON

---

William Lyon

Chief Executive Officer

March 12, 2004



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to William Lyon Homes and will be retained by William Lyon
Homes and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 6 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 7 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 8 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 9 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 10 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 11 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 12 of 13
Case 1:06-cv-15025-AKH Document 1 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 13 of 13
Exhibit
10.8


 


EMPLOYMENT
AGREEMENT AMENDMENT


 


THIS
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT (this “Amendment”) is entered into effective
as of January 1, 2020 (the “Effective Date”), between Rhino GP LLC (“Employer”) and Brian Aug
(“Employee”).


 


W
I T N E S S E T H


 


WHEREAS,
Employee is currently employed by Employer pursuant to an Employment Agreement dated November 21, 2016 (as amended, the “Prior
Agreement”). 


 


WHEREAS,
Employer and Employee now desire to amend the Prior Agreement, and have executed this Amendment to evidence the terms of their
agreement.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties agree as follows:


 


1.
The first sentence of Section 1 of the Prior Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety with the following language:


 


“The
Employer hereby shall employ Employee as its Vice President of Sales continuing from the Effective Date until December 31, 2020,
unless sooner terminated as herein provided or extended by mutual agreement of the parties (the “Employment Term”),
with such duties customary to such position as Employer may reasonably designate during the Employment Term.”


 


2.
As partial consideration for Employee entering into this Amendment, Employer agrees that, on or before October 1, 2020, Employer
shall notify Employee whether it intends to extend the Employment Term for 2021, and shall provide Employee with the applicable
agreement or amendment, if any.


 


3.
All other terms and conditions in the Prior Agreement shall remain unchanged except to the extent specifically modified herein.


 


[SIGNATURE
PAGE TO FOLLOW]


 




    	1



    	 



    

 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the day and year first above written.





 


	 	EMPLOYER:
	 	 
	 	Rhino
    GP LLC
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/
    Richard A. Boone


 


	 	EMPLOYEE:
	 	 
	 	/s/
    Brian Aug
	 	 
	 	Brian
    Aug





 




    	2
#### STATE v. MANEY

No. 93 PC

Case below: 48 NC App 742

Petition by defendant for discretionary review under G.S. 7A-31 denied 27 January 1981. Motion of Attorney General to dismiss appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question allowed 27 January 1981.
SCWC

- 1 7

- 0000 206

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI  I

JIHYUN SIM, Individually, and as Court

- Appointed Personal Representative for the Estate of Her Sister JISU SIM, SANG KI SHIM, father of JISU SIM, and TIA SUK KIM, mother of JISU SIM,

Petitioners/ Plaintiffs

- Appellants ,

vs.

KONA ISLANDER INN, ASSOCIATION O F APARTMENT OWNERS OF KONA ISLANDER INN, KONA ISLANDER INN HOTEL, HAWAIIANA MANAGEMENT COMPANY LTD., ICHTHUS LAND COMPANY, CHRISTIAN VAN DYCK, Individually, as a member of the Association of Apartment Owners of Kona Islander Inn, and owner of Rainbow

Plantation Bed & Breakfast, Respondents/ Defendants

- Appell ees

.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP

- 1 7

- 0000 206 ; CIV. NO. 15

- 1

- 252K )

ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Petitioner/ Plaintiffs

- Appellants’ Application for Writ

of Certiorari, filed on December 28, 2020, is hereby rejected.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, February 18, 2021.

/s/ Mark E. Recktenwald

/s/ Paula A. Nakayama

/s/ Sabrina S. McKenna

/s/ Michael D. Wilson

/s/ Todd W. Eddins Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-17-0000206 18-FEB-2021 08:04 AM Dkt. 17 ODAC
Case 1:07-cv-03250-JGK Document 10 Filed 07/09/2007 Page 1 of 1
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-18-00105-CR

TRISTAN BLAYDE FLOWERS, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 5th District Court

Cass County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2017F00270

Before Morriss, C.J., Moseley and Burgess, JJ.

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Burgess
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The appellant, Tristan Blayde Flowers, has submitted to his attorney a personal letter 

requesting dismissal of his appeal in this matter. The letter was submitted to this Court as part of 

a motion to dismiss filed by counsel, and we view the letter as the clearest possible expression of 

Flowers’ desire to dismiss this appeal. As authorized by Rule 42.2 of the Texas Rules of Appellate 

Procedure, we grant Flowers’ request. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal.

Ralph K. Burgess

Justice

Date Submitted: August 13, 2018

Date Decided: August 14, 2018

Do Not Publish
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-13-00599-CR

GREGORY MCCAIN APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS STATE

----------

FROM CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NO. 2 OF TARRANT COUNTY

----------

MEMORANDUM OPINION1

----------

On December 13, 2013, Appellant Gregory McCain filed a motion for postconviction DNA testing and appointment of counsel and also filed a notice of 

appeal. The trial court clerk has informed us that the trial judge has not signed 

an order in this case. On January 3, 2014, we notified McCain that it appears we 

lack jurisdiction over this matter because there is no order and his notice of 

 

1See Tex. R. App. P. 47.4.
2

appeal is premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a)(1), 27.1(b). We 

advised that this appeal could be dismissed unless he, or any party desiring to 

continue the appeal, filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal 

on or before January 23, 2014. No response has been filed.

The rules of appellate procedure provide that a criminal defendant has the 

right to appeal a judgment of guilt or other appealable order. See Tex. R. App. P. 

25.2(a)(2). There is no appealable order in this case, and McCain’s notice of 

appeal is premature. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(a)(2), 26.2(a)(1), 27.1(b). 

Accordingly, the appeal is ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

PER CURIAM

PANEL: WALKER, MCCOY, and MEIER, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: February 20, 2013
The Football Association Premier League Limited et al v. Youtube, Inc. et al Doc. 140

Dockets.Justia.com
Dismiss; Opinion Filed September 17, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05-20-00737-CV

J. CHRISTIAN CATHER, M.D. AND 

J. CHRISTIAN CATHER, M.D., PLLC, Appellants

V.

MADELYN DEAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-06165

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Whitehill, Molberg, and Nowell

Opinion by Justice Nowell

Before the Court is appellants’ motion for extension of time to file a petition 

for permissive appeal. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE ANN. § 51.014(d) 

(authorizing trial court to permit interlocutory appeal from otherwise unappealable 

interlocutory order under certain circumstances), (f) (requiring party seeking to 

appeal to petition appellate court for permission); TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3 (governing 

procedure for filing petition for permissive appeal). Appellants assert the extension 

is necessary because the order to be appealed does not fully comply with the 
–2–

requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 168, which sets forth the process for 

initiating a permissive appeal. 

Under Rule 168, a trial court may permit an appeal from an otherwise 

unappealable interlocutory order. TEX. R. CIV. P. 168. To do so, the trial court must 

sign a written order stating, in relevant part, its permission to appeal. See id. The 

date the order stating the court’s permission is signed triggers the deadline for filing 

the petition for permissive appeal. See TEX. R. APP. P. 28.3(c). Without a written 

order stating the trial court’s permission, no basis for filing a petition for permissive 

appeal exists. See Hebert v. JJT Constr., 438 S.W.3d 139, 142 (Tex. App.—Houston 

[14th Dist.] 2014, no pet.).

The clerk’s record that has been filed includes the order to be appealed as well 

as an amended order. Neither order includes a statement of permission. 

Accordingly, no basis for filing a petition for permissive appeal exists, and the 

motion for extension of time is premature. See id. We dismiss the motion and appeal 

for want of jurisdiction. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.3(a).

200737F.P05

/Erin A. Nowell/

ERIN A. NOWELL

JUSTICE
–3–

Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

J. CHRISTIAN CATHER, M.D. 

AND J. CHRISTIAN CATHER, 

M.D., PLLC, Appellants

No. 05-20-00737-CV V.

MADELYN DEAN, Appellee

On Appeal from the 191st Judicial 

District Court, Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DC-20-06165.

Opinion delivered by Justice Nowell, 

Justices Whitehill and Molberg 

participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS the appeal.

We ORDER that appellee Madelyn Dean recover her costs, if any, of this 

appeal from appellants J. Christian Cather, M.D. and J. Christian Cather, M.D., 

PLLC.

Judgment entered this 17th day of September, 2020.
#### Walter J. Dwyer *vs.*Philip G. Ferren *&*others.

Suffolk.

March 12,1926.

March 18, 1926.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Braley, Crosby, Pierce, & Wait, JJ.

*Probate Court,*Jury issues.

Upon the record, a denial by a judge of probate of a motion, by one contesting the allowance of a will, for jury issues was *held*to show no error of law.

Petition, filed in the Probate Court for the county of Suffolk on November 3, 1925, for the proof of the will of Thomas W. Kelley, late of Boston.

The respondents moved that issues be framed for trial by jury. The motions were heard by *Dolan,*J., upon oral statements by counsel of expected evidence, a stenographer having been appointed under G. L. c. 215, § 18, to take *262the evidence. The motions were denied. The respondents appealed.

*J. F. Meagher,*for the respondents.

*J. H. Vahey, (P. Mansfield*with him,) for the petitioner.

By the Court.

The statement of expected evidence, which need not be narrated, shows that there was no error of law by the Probate Court in denying motions to frame issues to be tried to a jury respecting the will offered for proof. *Fuller*v. *Sylvia,*240 Mass. 49. *Clark*v. *McNeil,*246 Mass. 250. *Old Colony Trust Co.*v. *Spaulding,*250 Mass. 400.

*Order denying motions to frame jury issues affirmed.*
Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 1 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 2 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 3 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 4 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 5 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 6 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 7 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 8 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 9 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 10 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 11 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 12 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 13 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 14 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 15 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 16 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 17 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 18 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 19 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 20 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 21 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 22 of 23Case 1:07-cv-03498-AKH Document 7-4 Filed 07/02/2007 Page 23 of 23
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 1 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 2 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 3 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 4 of 5
Case 1:07-cv-03536-GEL Document 1 Filed 05/03/2007 Page 5 of 5
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 25 (Tuesday, February 8, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 6707]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-2349]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; 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/or contract proposals 
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 and/or contract proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Cancer Institute Special Emphasis 
Panel, RFA CA-05-002 and CA-05-006-IMAT.
    Date: March 9-10, 2005.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Gaithersburg Hilton, 620 Perry Parkway, Gaithersburg, MD 
20877.
    Contact Person: Sherwood Githens, PhD, Scientific Review 
Administrator, Special Review and Logistics Branch, National Cancer 
Institute, Division of Extramural Activities, 6116 Executives Blvd., 
Bethesda, MD 20892, 301/435-1822, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b0bea3bfb2b9a4a497bab6bebbf9b9bebff9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="8aede3fee2efe4f9f9cae7ebe3e6a4e4e3e2a4ede5fc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.392, 
Cancer Construction; 93.393, Cancer Cause and Prevention Research; 
93.394, Cancer Detection and Diagnosis Research; 93.395, Cancer 
Treatment Research; 93.396, Cancer Biology Research; 93.397, Cancer 
Centers Support; 93.398, Cancer Research Manpower; 93.399, Cancer 
Control, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: February 2, 2005.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committees Policy.
[FR Doc. 05-2349 Filed 2-7-05; 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>