alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Order entered September 17, 2020

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 20

- 00126

- CV
WILLIAM J. KANEN, Appellant

V.
DEWOLFF, BOBERG & ASSOCIATES, INC., Appellee
On Appea l from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. CC

- 18

- 01228

- D

ORDER
Before the Court is appellant’s September 9, 2020 unopposed motion for an extension of time to file his brief on the merits. Appellant asks for an extens ion of fourteen days after the requested and ordered supplemental clerk’s record and sealed supplemental clerk’s record are filed. These records have now been filed. Accordingly, we GRANT appellant’s motion and extend the time to October 1,
2020

.

/s/ ERI N A. NOWELL JUSTICE
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

PRESTON R. SCOTT,

Petitioner,

vs. Case No.: 3:09cv328/MCR/EMT

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Respondent.

________________________/

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge’s Report and

Recommendation dated October 28, 2009 (Doc. 14). Petitioner has been furnished a copy

of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections

pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo

determination of any timely filed objections.

Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto

timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge’s Report and Recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for Petitioner’s failure to comply

with an order of the court.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3rd day of December, 2009.

 s/ M. Casey Rodgers 

M. CASEY RODGERS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion *

should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited

circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-60523

Summary Calendar

SONIA ZAVALA-MORALES

Petitioner

v.

ERIC H HOLDER, JR, U S ATTORNEY GENERAL

Respondent

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A78 987 512

Before WIENER, STEWART, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Sonia Zavala-Morales, a native and citizen of Mexico, seeks a petition for

review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying her

application for hardship cancellation of removal pursuant to 8 U.S.C. § 1229b.

We dismiss the petition in part for lack of jurisdiction and deny the petition in

part.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

March 4, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-60523

2

We generally review only the BIA’s decision except to the extent that the

decision of the immigration judge (IJ) influences the BIA. Mikhael v. INS, 115

F.3d 299, 302 (5th Cir. 1997). We may review the IJ’s decision in the instant

case because the BIA adopted it. See Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir.

1994).

We lack jurisdiction to review the IJ’s discretionary determination that

Zavala-Morales failed to demonstrate the “exceptional and extremely unusual

hardship” required for cancellation of removal under § 1229b. See 8 U.S.C.

§ 1252(a)(2)(B)(i); Sung v. Keisler, 505 F.3d 372, 377 (5th Cir. 2007); Rueda v.

Ashcroft, 380 F.3d 831, 831 (5th Cir. 2004). We reject Zavala-Morales’s attempt

to classify her disagreement with the weighing and consideration of the relevant

factors by the IJ as an issue of constitutional dimension. See Hadwani v.

Gonzales, 445 F.3d 798, 801 (5th Cir. 2006). To the extent that Zavala-Morales

challenges the discretionary denial of her request for cancellation of removal, we

dismiss her petition for want of jurisdiction.

Zavala-Morales’s claim that her due process rights were violated because

the IJ exhibited bias against her is unavailing. Our review of the record does not

show that the IJ held a “personal bias” against Zavala-Morales that arose from

an “extrajudicial source” or that the IJ’s conduct demonstrated “pervasive bias

and prejudice.” See Matter of Exame, 18 I & N Dec. 303, 306 (BIA 1982).

Zavala-Morales’s bias claim lacks merit, and we deny her petition for review on

this issue.

DISMISSED IN PART FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION; DENIED IN

PART.
II 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2413 

To exclude the imposition of duties and import quotas from the authorities 

provided to the President under the International Emergency Economic 

Powers Act. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

AUGUST 1, 2019 

Mr. CARPER (for himself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. LEE, Mr. 

JONES, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. MENENDEZ, and Ms. HASSAN) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To exclude the imposition of duties and import quotas from 

the authorities provided to the President under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Trade Certainty Act 

5 of 2019’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•S 2413 IS

1 SEC. 2. EXCLUSION OF IMPOSITION OF DUTIES AND IM2 PORT QUOTAS FROM PRESIDENTIAL AU3 THORITIES UNDER INTERNATIONAL EMER4 GENCY ECONOMIC POWERS ACT. 

5 Section 203 of the International Emergency Eco6 nomic Powers Act (50 U.S.C. 1702) is amended— 

7 (1) by redesignating subsection (c) as sub8 section (d); and 

9 (2) by inserting after subsection (b) the fol10 lowing: 

11 ‘‘(c)(1) The authority granted to the President by 

12 this section does not include the authority to impose duties 

13 or tariff-rate quotas or (subject to paragraph (2)) other 

14 quotas on articles entering the United States. 

15 ‘‘(2) The limitation under paragraph (1) does not 

16 prohibit the President from excluding all articles, or all 

17 of a certain type of article, imported from a country from 

18 entering the United States.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
# C_2010294EN.01S00301.xml

| 29.10.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 294/s3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

29.10.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 294/s3

---

NOTICE

On 29 October 2010, in Official Journal of the European Union C 294 A, the ‘Common catalogue of varieties of vegetable species — 29th complete edition’ will be published.

Official Journal of the European Union

Subscribers to the Official Journal may obtain the same number of copies and language versions of this Official Journal as those to which they subscribe free of charge. They are requested to return the attached order form, duly completed and bearing their subscription registration number (code appearing on the left of each label and beginning with: O/...). This Official Journal will remain available free of charge for one year from the date of its publication.

Non-subscribers can order this Official Journal against payment from one of our sales offices (see http://publications.europa.eu/others/agents/index_en.htm).

This Official Journal — like all Official Journals (L, C, CA, CE) — can be consulted free of charge online at http://eur-lex.europa.eu

Image

---
Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 1 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 2 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 3 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 4 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 5 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 6 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 7 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 8 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 9 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 10 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 11 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 12 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 13 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 14 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 15 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 16 of 17Case 3:10-cv-00065-MCR-EMT Document 93-1 Filed 05/31/11 Page 17 of 17
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

STUART W. RYAN,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 3:10cv336/RS-MD

THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE 

UNIVERSITY OF WEST FLORIDA,

Defendant.

_________________________________/

ORDER

Before me is the Report of Parties’ Planning Meeting (Doc. 13). The attorneys

have disregarded the guidance in the Initial Scheduling Order regarding the discovery

deadline and a trial date. Plaintiff’s counsel has failed to provide exact dates of his

other scheduling conflict.

IT IS ORDERED that the parties shall file an amended joint report not later than

November 8, 2010, with dates consistent with a discovery deadline of March 18, 2011,

and jury trial on May 23, 2011, or June 6, 2011.

ORDERED on October 28, 2010.

/S/ Richard Smoak 

RICHARD SMOAK

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

JAMES BRONSON BELVAL,

Plaintiff,

v. CASE NO. 4:10-cv-00151-SPM -GRJ

GILMORE, et al,

Defendants.

_____________________________/

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

Plaintiff brings this cause of action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 alleging denial

of medical care at the Leon County Jail; specifically, that the jail’s policy of

administering insulin to diabetic inmates was unconstitutional. (Doc. 6). By Order

dated August 4, 2010, Plaintiff was directed to file an amended complaint and advised 

of certain deficiencies in his pleading. (Doc. 14). Plaintiff sought an extension of time 

to comply with this order (doc. 17), which was granted. (Doc. 18). However, the Order 

granting the extension of time was returned as undeliverable (doc. 19), and no 

forwarding address was provided nor has one been found in any of the local prison 

directories. Plaintiff’s last known address was Lowndes County Jail in Valdosta, 

Georgia. (Doc. 8).

A trial court has inherent power to dismiss a case sua sponte for failure to

prosecute. Link v. Wabash Railroad, 370 U.S. 626 (1962); Eades v. Alabama Dept. of

Human Resources, 298 Fed. Appx. 862 (11th Cir. 2008) (district court has discretion to

dismiss case sua sponte where plaintiff has failed to comply with court orders and was

on notice that such failure may result in dismissal). Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) also
Page 2 of 2

authorizes a district court to dismiss an action for failure to obey a court order. 

Plaintiff has failed to comply with an order of this Court directing that he file an

amended complaint (docs. 14 and 18); he was advised that failure to comply with the

Order may result in a recommendation that his case be dismissed; and he has failed to

keep the Court advised of his current address. Consequently, this case should be

dismissed.

Accordingly, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED that this case be DISMISSED

without prejudice.

At Gainesville, Florida, this 15th day of September, 2010.

s/Gary R. Jones 

GARY R. JONES

United States Magistrate Judge

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2), a party may file specific, written objections to

the proposed findings and recommendations within 14 days after being served with a

copy of this report and recommendation. A party may respond to another party’s

objections within 14 days after being served with a copy thereof. Failure to file specific

objections limits the scope of review of proposed factual findings and

recommendations.

Case No: 4:10-cv-00151-SPM -GRJ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

BRADY GUINAGH,

Plaintiffs,

v. CASE NO.: 4:10cv317-SPM/WCS

JAMES DEBEAUGRINE, in his official 

capacity as Director, Florida Agency for

Persons with Disabilities,

Defendant.

________________________________/

ORDER EXTENDING TIME TO RESPOND

Upon consideration, the stipulated motion for extension of time to respond

to the complaint and motion for preliminary injunction (doc. 10) is granted. 

Defendant shall have up to and including September 7, 2010, to respond to the

complaint and motion for preliminary injunction

SO ORDERED this 23rd day of August, 2010.

 s/ Stephan P. Mickle 

Stephan P. Mickle

Chief United States District Judge
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

IBRAHIM GARCIA-HERNANDEZ,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D22-140

LT Case No. 2017-CF-026321-A

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

________________________________/

Decision filed March 7, 2023

Appeal from the Circuit Court 

for Brevard County,

David C. Koenig, Judge.

Matthew J. Metz, Public Defender, 

and Robert Jackson Pearce, III, 

Assistant Public Defender, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, and Allison L. Morris, 

Assistant Attorney General, Daytona 

Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

LAMBERT, C.J., WALLIS and EDWARDS, JJ., concur.
Page 1 of 1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PENSACOLA DIVISION

SERAFIN SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO.: 3:09cv379/LAC/MD

WALTER A. MCNEIL, et. al.,

Defendants.

 

O R D E R

This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's report and

recommendation dated January 26, 2010. The plaintiff has been furnished a copy

of the report and recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file

objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). 

Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that the

report and recommendation should be adopted.

Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation is adopted and

incorporated by reference in this order.

2. The plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (doc. 12) is granted, this case is

dismissed without prejudice, and the clerk is directed to close the file.

DONE AND ORDERED this 3 day of March, 2010. rd

s/L.A. Collier 

LACEY A. COLLIER

SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

PANAMA CITY DIVISION

PATRONIS BROTHERS, INC., d/b/a CAPT.

ANDERSON'S RESTAURANT,

Plaintiff,

vs. CASE NO. 5:10-cv-254/RS-MD

TRITON ASSET LEASING GmbH;

TRANSOCEAN HOLDINGS LLC;

TRANSOCEAN OFFSHORE DEEPWATER

DRILLING INC.; TRANSOCEAN

DEEPWATER INC.; HALLIBURTON

ENERGY SERVICES, INC., a/k/a

HALLIBURTON COMPANY; and

CAMERON INTERNATIONAL

CORPORATION,

Defendants.

_________________________________________/

UORDER

Before me is Plaintiff’s Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice (Doc. 

14). 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. The case is dismissed without prejudice. 

2. The clerk is directed to close the case in its entirety. 

ORDERED on November 2, 2010

 /S/ Richard Smoak

 RICHARD SMOAK

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[No. 1837]

#### ESMERALDA COUNTY, etc., Appellant, *v.*J. F. BRADLEY, et als., Respondents.

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District of the State of Nevada, Esmeralda County; *Tlieron Stevens,*Judge.

Action by Esmeralda County against J. F. Bradley and others. From a judgment for defendants, plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

The facts sufficiently appear in the opinion.

*Augustus Tilden,*District Attorney, for Appellant:

I. Esmeralda County in this case seeks to recover from Mr. Bradley and his official sureties the sum of $3,423.93, being six per cent of the licenses collected by Mr. Bradley, as ex officio license collector of Esmeralda County from April 1, 1905, to February 1, 1906, and retained by Mr. Bradley as his commission. 'The county also seeks to recover 'the sum of $855.98 as penalties and interest. Mr. Bradley’s claim is that after the Esmeralda salary act of 1905 he, being sheriff and ex officio license collector of Esmeralda County, was entitled to the commissions reserved and retained by him. The county disputes that right. The matter having been fully gone into in the case of *Bradley*v. *Gou/nty,*it is needless here to present it further.

*Summeifield & Gurler,*for Respondent:

I. Respondent concurs in the statement made by appellant’s- counsel in its brief that there is no reason why the determination in the case of *Bradley*v. *Esmeralda County,*should not be conclusive in this case.

By the Court,

Noeceoss, C. J.:

This is an action instituted by Esmeralda County against J. F. Bradley, as sheriff of said county, and his bondsmen, to recover the sum of $3,423.93, representing the amount of percentages retained by said Bradley as ex officio collector of licenses. The case involves the same question of law this *169day determined in the case of *Bradley*v. *Esmeralda County*(No. 1,838), 32 Nev. 159. In the lower court the two cases were consolidated and heard together. Judgment in the case was rendered in favor of the defendants for their costs of suit.

For the reasons stated in the opinion in case No. 1,838, *supra,*the judgment is affirmed.
# C_2009268EN.01002001.xml

| 10.11.2009 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 268/20 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

10.11.2009

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 268/20

---

Euro exchange rates (1)

1

9 November 2009

2009/C 268/06

1 euro =

1 euro =

| | Currency | Exchange rate |
| --- | --- | --- |
| USD | US dollar | 1,4984 |
| JPY | Japanese yen | 134,81 |
| DKK | Danish krone | 7,4413 |
| GBP | Pound sterling | 0,89365 |
| SEK | Swedish krona | 10,3005 |
| CHF | Swiss franc | 1,5103 |
| ISK | Iceland króna | |
| NOK | Norwegian krone | 8,4195 |
| BGN | Bulgarian lev | 1,9558 |
| CZK | Czech koruna | 25,578 |
| EEK | Estonian kroon | 15,6466 |
| HUF | Hungarian forint | 272,74 |
| LTL | Lithuanian litas | 3,4528 |
| LVL | Latvian lats | 0,7087 |
| PLN | Polish zloty | 4,2180 |
| RON | Romanian leu | 4,2975 |
| TRY | Turkish lira | 2,2110 |
| AUD | Australian dollar | 1,6141 |
| CAD | Canadian dollar | 1,5923 |
| HKD | Hong Kong dollar | 11,6118 |
| NZD | New Zealand dollar | 2,0271 |
| SGD | Singapore dollar | 2,0774 |
| KRW | South Korean won | 1 739,26 |
| ZAR | South African rand | 11,1147 |
| CNY | Chinese yuan renminbi | 10,2292 |
| HRK | Croatian kuna | 7,2690 |
| IDR | Indonesian rupiah | 14 100,10 |
| MYR | Malaysian ringgit | 5,0650 |
| PHP | Philippine peso | 70,271 |
| RUB | Russian rouble | 43,0865 |
| THB | Thai baht | 49,916 |
| BRL | Brazilian real | 2,5570 |
| MXN | Mexican peso | 20,0628 |
| INR | Indian rupee | 69,5960 |

Currency

Exchange rate

USD

US dollar

1,4984

JPY

Japanese yen

134,81

DKK

Danish krone

7,4413

GBP

Pound sterling

0,89365

SEK

Swedish krona

10,3005

CHF

Swiss franc

1,5103

ISK

Iceland króna

NOK

Norwegian krone

8,4195

BGN

Bulgarian lev

1,9558

CZK

Czech koruna

25,578

EEK

Estonian kroon

15,6466

HUF

Hungarian forint

272,74

LTL

Lithuanian litas

3,4528

LVL

Latvian lats

0,7087

PLN

Polish zloty

4,2180

RON

Romanian leu

4,2975

TRY

Turkish lira

2,2110

AUD

Australian dollar

1,6141

CAD

Canadian dollar

1,5923

HKD

Hong Kong dollar

11,6118

NZD

New Zealand dollar

2,0271

SGD

Singapore dollar

2,0774

KRW

South Korean won

1 739,26

ZAR

South African rand

11,1147

CNY

Chinese yuan renminbi

10,2292

HRK

Croatian kuna

7,2690

IDR

Indonesian rupiah

14 100,10

MYR

Malaysian ringgit

5,0650

PHP

Philippine peso

70,271

RUB

Russian rouble

43,0865

THB

Thai baht

49,916

BRL

Brazilian real

2,5570

MXN

Mexican peso

20,0628

INR

Indian rupee

69,5960

---

(1)  Source: reference exchange rate published by the ECB.

1

Source

---
demonstration of good cause and actual prejudice. See NRS 34.726(1); 

NRS 34.810(1)(b); NRS 34.810(3). 

Appellant claimed that he had good cause to excuse the 

procedural bars because the documentation concerning his new claim was 

previously unavailable to him. Appellant's claim lacked merit. Appellant 

did not specify the document to which he referred, although it was 

presumably the sentencing memorandum from which he culled his 

argument. Appellant failed to demonstrate that an impediment external 

to the defense prevented him from previously obtaining his own 

sentencing memorandum. See Hathaway v. State, 119 Nev. 248, 252-53, 

71 P.3d 503, 506 (2003). We therefore conclude that the district court did 

not err in denying appellant's petition as procedurally barred, and we 

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED. 3 

Pickering Saitta 

3We have reviewed all documents that appellant has submitted in 

proper person to the clerk of this court in this matter, and we conclude 

that no relief based upon those submissions is warranted. To the extent 

that appellant has attempted to present claims or facts in those 

submissions which were not previously presented in the proceedings 

below, we have declined to consider them in the first instance. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEvADA 2 

(0) 1947A 
cc: Hon. David A. Hardy, District Judge 

Orlando Scott Martin, Jr. 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Washoe County District Attorney 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 3 

(0) 1947A
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 65314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-5755]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Meeting of the Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee will meet in 
closed session on December 11, 2007 from 0800 hrs until 2030 and 
December 12, 2007 from 0730 hrs until 1430 at the Pentagon.
    The purpose of the meeting is to provide the Secretary of Defense, 
Deputy Secretary of Defense and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy 
with independent, informed advice on major matters of defense policy. 
The Board will hold classified discussions on national security 
matters.
    In accordance with Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, Public Law No. 92-463, as amended [5 U.S.C. 552B(c)(1)(1982)], and 
that accordingly this meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: November 14, 2007.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 07-5755 Filed 11-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-06-M