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UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. No. 96-7309

DON RICO MADDOX,

Defendant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington.

Robert J. Staker, Senior District Judge.

(CR-94-21, CA-95-1137-3)

Submitted: March 31, 1997

Decided: April 22, 1997

Before ERVIN and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and

PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Don Rico Maddox, Appellant Pro Se. Paul Thomas Farrell, Assistant

United States Attorney, Huntington, West Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See

Local Rule 36(c).

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Don Maddox seeks to appeal the district court's order and order on

reconsideration denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255

(West 1994 & Supp. 1997). Maddox's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Maddox

that failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could

waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Maddox failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the substance of

that recommendation when the parties have been warned that failure

to object will waive appellate review. Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841,

845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140

(1985). Maddox has waived appellate review of the district court's

underlying order denying his § 2255 motion by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Moreover, we find that the district

court did not abuse its discretion by denying Maddox's motion for

reconsideration, see Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d

716, 724 (4th Cir. 1991), because the motion did not even address

Maddox's failure to timely raise objections, which was the basis for

the district court's denial of relief.

We accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court

and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED

 2
Exhibit 10.2


 





CYCLACEL PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.


200 Connell Drive, Suite 1500


Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922


 


December 28, 2022


 


Mr. Paul McBarron


c/o Cyclacel Pharmaceuticals, Inc.


200 Connell Drive, Suite 1500


Berkeley Heights, NJ 07922


 


Dear Mr. McBarron:


 


Reference is made to the agreement
between us (the “Agreement”) made as of January 1, 2021. This will confirm our agreement to extend the Agreement through the
period ended June 30, 2023, effective as of January 1, 2023. Please confirm your agreement to the foregoing by signing below in the space
provided.


 


	 	Sincerely,
	 	 
	 	CYCLACEL
    PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.
	 	 
	 	By: 	/s/ Spiro Rombotis
	 	Name:  	Spiro Rombotis
	 	Title: 	President & CEO




 


	ACKNOWLEDGED
    AND AGREED:	 
	 	 
	/s/
    Paul McBarron	 
	Paul
    McBarron
### Proposed Provision: B6.7. Starting in January 2030, provide an addition to monthly benefits for all beneficiaries who have been eligible for at least 20 years, with the following specifications:  (1) Augment benefits (not the PIA) for those of qualifying age and eligibility duration with a MAGI below about $29,400 if single and $58,800 if married. MAGI is set to equal the IRMAA definition (AGI plus tax-exempt interest income). Index these thresholds after 2030 by the increase in the C-CPI-U; (2) The full additional amount is applicable for those born 1963 and later, once 24 years elapse from initial eligibility. The basic additional amount is calculated as 5 percent of the PIA for a hypothetical worker with earnings equal to the AWI each year; (3) For those born prior to 1963, the full additional amount is multiplied by the number of years they have been affected by the C-CPI-U, divided by 24; (4) Beneficiaries will receive 20 percent of their additional amount in their 20th year after initial eligibility, 40 percent in their 21st year after initial eligibility,..., and 100 percent of their additional amount in their 24th and later years after benefit eligibility; (5) Retired and disabled worker beneficiaries, dually entitled spouse beneficiaries, and all survivor beneficiaries received their addition as described above. Spousal beneficiaries (aged or with child in care) and child beneficiaries of a living retired or disabled worker receive 50 percent of the additional amount described above. Other beneficiary types (such as parents of deceased workers) will receive the percentage of the flat benefit that equals the percentage of the insured worker's PIA that they receive; (6) The AWI used is for the second year prior to the beneficiary's initial eligibility year, with applicable COLAs applied up to the age when the addition is received; and (7) The additional amount is added to the monthly benefit after reductions for early claiming or increases for delayed claiming have been applied.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 41 (Thursday, March 2, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11694]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5139]




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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket No. 70-3070-ML; ASLBP No. 91-641-02-ML (Special Nuclear 
Material License)]


Louisiana Energy Services, L.P. (Claiborne Enrichment Center); 
Memorandum and Order (Notice of Prehearing Conference and Evidentiary 
Hearing)

February 24, 1995.
    This proceeding concerns the licensing of a proposed uranium 
enrichment facility in Claiborne Parish, Louisiana. Notice is hereby 
given that an evidentiary hearing in this proceeding will commence on 
Monday, March 13, 1995, at the First Floor Magistrate's Courtroom, 
United States Federal Courthouse, 300 Fannin Street, Shreveport, 
Louisiana 71101. The evidentiary hearing will begin immediately after a 
prehearing conference that will commence at 2:00 p.m. The evidentiary 
hearing will continue, to the extent necessary, on March 14-17 and 
March 20-24 at that same location, beginning at 9:00 a.m. each day.

    Rockville, Maryland, February 24, 1995.

    For the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board.
Thomas S. Moore,
Chairman, Administrative Judge.
[FR Doc. 95-5139 Filed 3-1-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10843]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4811]



[[Page 10843]]

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

[Docket No. MG88-30-002]


Great Lakes Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Filing

February 22, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 10, 1995, Great Lakes Gas Transmission 
Company (Great Lakes) filed revised standards of conduct governing the 
business relationship between Great Lakes and its marketing/brokering 
affiliates.\1\

    \1\Standards of Conduct and Reporting Requirements for 
Transportation and Affiliate Transactions, Order No. 566, 59 FR 
32885 (June 27, 1994), III FERC Stats. & Regs. 30,997 (June 17, 
1994); Order No. 566-A, order on rehearing, 59 FR 52896 (October 20, 
1994), 69 FERC 61,044 (October 14, 1994); Order No. 566-B, order on 
rehearing, 59 FR 65707, (December 21, 1994); 69 FERC 61,334 
(December 14, 1994); appeal docketed sub nom. Conoco, Inc. v. FERC, 
D.C. Cir. No. 94-1745 (December 13, 1994).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, 
D.C., 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 or 385.214). All such 
motions to intervene or protest should be filed on or before March 9, 
1995. Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4811 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 35 (Wednesday, February 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 9881-9882]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4230]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 9882]]

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements Under OMB Review

ACTION: Notice of reporting requirements submitted for review.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35), agencies are required to submit proposed reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements to OMB for review and approval, and to 
publish a notice in the Federal Register notifying the public that the 
agency has made such a submission.

DATES: Comments should be submitted within 30 days of this publication 
in the Federal Register. If you intend to comment but cannot prepare 
promptly, please advise the OMB Reviewer and the Agency Clearance 
Officer before the deadline.

COPIES: Request for clearance (OMB 83-1), supporting statement, and 
other documents submitted to OMB for review may be obtained from the 
Agency Clearance Officer. Submit comments to the Agency Clearance 
Officer and the OMB Reviewer.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Agency Clearance Officer: Cleo Verbillis, Small Business 
Administration, 409 3rd Street, S.W., 5th Floor, Washington, D.C. 
20416, Telephone: (202) 205-6629.
OMB Reviewer: Donald Arbuckle, Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Title: SBA Grants Management Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements.
Form No.: SBA Forms 1222 and 1224.
Frequency: On Occasion.
Description of Respondents: SBA Grant Applicants and Recipients.
Annual Responses: 1,480.
Annual Burden: 118,920.

    Dated: February 16, 1995.
Cleo Verbillis,
Chief, Administrative Information Branch.
[FR Doc. 95-4230 Filed 2-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### STATE v. JOE TODD.

(Filed 10 June, 1960.)

Criminal law § 161—

Where the evidence is not in the record, assignments of error to the charge cannot be sustained unless the instructions are inherently or patently erroneous irrespective of any evidence.

Appeal by defendant from *Carr, J.,*February Criminal Term, 1960 of Robeson.

The defendant was tried on a bill of indictment charging him with manslaughter. From a verdict of guilty of involuntary manslaughter *785and the sentence imposed thereon, the defendant appeals, assigning error.

*Attorney General Bruton for the State.*

*Hackett & Weinstein for defendant.*

PER CuRiam:

All that appears in this case is the record proper, the Judge’s charge and the defendant’s assignments of error, all of which are addressed to portions of the charge. The case on appeal contains none of the evidence offered in the trial below.

In the case of *S. v. Ray,*232 N.C. 496, 61 S.E. 2d 254, *Stacy, C. J.,*speaking for the Court, said: “Even if some of the instructions, standing alone, should be regarded as erroneous, they could not be declared prejudicial or hurtful, unless inherently and patently so, in the absence of the evidence upon which they were based or to which they speak. 24 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 1857, page 733; *Pickett v. Pickett,*14 N.C. 6; *State v. Wilson,*121 N.C. 650, 28 S.E. 416.”

An examination of the assignments of error challenging the correctness of certain portions of the charge in the trial below, reveals no error and they are, therefore, without merit.

The verdict and judgment will be upheld.

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1564

Illinois Tool Works:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 8, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12787]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5688]



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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering Education and Centers; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name and Committee Code: Special Emphasis Panel in Engineering 
Education and Centers (173).
    Date and Time: March 21-22, 1995; 8:00 AM to 5:00 PM
    Place: Room 375, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Lynn Preston, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: (703) 306-1381.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate Engineering Research Centers 
proposals as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the proposals. 
These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (6) of the 
Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: March 3, 1995.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-5688 Filed 3-7-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-2177

JOHN MERRITT JAMES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus SECRETARY OF LABOR, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Bluefield. David A. Faber, District Judge. (CA-97-723) Submitted: February 9, 1999 Decided: March 22, 1999 Before WILLIAMS and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Merritt James, Appellant Pro Se. Gary L. Call, Assistant United States Attorney, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: John Merritt James appeals from the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Defendant on his action seeking to recover a relocation allowance in connection with his job transfer. Our review of the record and the district court’s opinion discloses no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. James v. United States Dep’t of Labor , No. CA97-723 (S.D.W. Va. July 21, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS FOUND ON
PAGES 2 AND 3 OF THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-Q FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                              45
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   16,202
<ALLOWANCES>                                       178
<INVENTORY>                                     44,267
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                63,094
<PP&E>                                          93,036
<DEPRECIATION>                                  12,760
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 145,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           42,519
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            95
<OTHER-SE>                                      50,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   145,512
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                17,756
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,803
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,549
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,395
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  2,003
<INCOME-TAX>                                       817
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,186
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,186
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   ($.13)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   ($.13)
        

</TABLE>
STATE OF LOUISIANA

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

TROY LILLIE, ET AL. 

VERSUS

STANFORD TRUST COMPANY, 

STATE OF LOUISIANA, OFFICE

OF FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS, 

AND SEI INVESTMENTS COMPANY

NO. 2023 CW 0521

JULY 19, 2023

In Re: Troy Lillie, et al., applying for rehearing, 19th

Judicial District Court, Parish of East Baton Rouge, 

No. 581670. 

BEFORE: HOLDRIDGE, CHUTZ, AND PENZATO, JJ. 

APPLICATION FOR REHEARING DENIED. 

GH

WRC

AHP

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

4P14

TCLERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11026-11027]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5058]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

21 CFR Part 450

[Docket No. 94N-0302]


Antibiotic Drugs; Bleomycin Sulfate; Stay of Regulation

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; stay of regulation.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is staying a regulation 
that established standards for an antibiotic drug, bleomycin sulfate 
bulk drug substance. This action is being taken in response to a 
petition for stay of action.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 9, 1994.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tamar S. Nordenberg, Center for Drug 
Evaluation and Research (HFD-366), Food and Drug Administration, 7500 
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-2041.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of October 4, 1994 
(59 FR 50484), FDA published, as a final rule to become effective on 
November 3, 1994, a new antibiotic regulation setting forth standards 
for a bleomycin sulfate bulk drug substance (21 CFR 450.10). This new 
regulation differed from the monograph standards for sterile bleomycin 
sulfate bulk drug, set forth in 21 CFR 450.10a, in two respects: The 
new regulation did not require sterility at the bulk stage, and the new 
regulation [[Page 11027]] did not require testing for pyrogens at the 
bulk stage.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., the manufacturer of the innovator 
product, filed a petition for stay of action pursuant to 21 CFR 10.35, 
objecting to FDA's decision to promulgate the new regulation without 
notice and a prior opportunity for public comment. On November 9, 1994, 
FDA agreed to stay the effective date of the monograph for bleomycin 
sulfate bulk drug substance in order to reconsider the manner in which 
the agency promulgated the new monograph. A copy of FDA's letter 
notifying Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. of the stay is on file in the 
Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, rm. 
1-23, 12420 Parklawn Dr., Rockville, MD 20857.
    Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under 
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, 21 CFR part 
450 is amended as follows:

List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 450

    Antibiotics.

PART 450--ANTITUMOR ANTIBIOTIC DRUGS

    1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 450 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority: Sec. 507 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 
(21 U.S.C. 357).

Sec. 450.10  [Stayed]

    2. Section 450.10 Bleomycin sulfate is stayed effective November 9, 
1994.

    Dated: February 15, 1995.
Murray M. Lumpkin,
Deputy Director, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research.
[FR Doc. 95-5058 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F