alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 63 (Monday, April 3, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16880]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8122]



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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Meeting of the Division of 
Research Grants Advisory Committee

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, notice is hereby given of the meeting 
of the Division of Research Grants Advisory Committee, May 8-9, 1995, 
Building 31C, Conference Room 6, National Institutes of Health, 9000 
Rockville Pike, Bethesda, Maryland 20892.
    The entire meeting will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. on May 
8 to adjournment on May 9. The topics for the meeting will include, 
among others, the recommendations of the Clinical Research Study Group 
and the Survey of Science Workshop. Attendance by the public will be 
limited to space available.
    The Office of Committee Management, Division of Research Grants, 
Westwood Building, Room 433, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, 
Maryland 20892, telephone (301) 594-7265, will furnish a summary of the 
meeting and a roster of the committee members.
    Dr. Samuel Joseloff, Executive Secretary of the Committee, Westwood 
Building, Room 449, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, phone (301) 594-7248, will provide substantive program 
information upon request.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact the Executive Secretary at least two weeks in advance of the 
meeting.

    Dated: March 28, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-8122 Filed 3-31-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5110 

AN ACT 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

of 1965 to clarify that the prohibition on the use of 

Federal education funds for certain weapons does not 

apply to the use of such weapons for training in archery, 

hunting, or other shooting sports. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 5110 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Protecting Hunting 

3 Heritage and Education Act’’. 

4 SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PROHIBITION ON USE OF FED5 ERAL EDUCATION FUNDS FOR CERTAIN 

6 WEAPONS AND RELATED TRAINING. 

7 Section 8526(7) of the Elementary and Secondary 

8 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7906(7)) is amended 

9 by inserting ‘‘, except that this paragraph shall not apply 

10 to the use of funds under this Act for activities carried 

11 out under programs authorized by this Act that are other12 wise permissible under such programs and that provide 

13 students with educational instruction or educational en14 richment activities, such as archery, hunting, other shoot15 ing sports, or culinary arts’’ before the period at the end. 

Passed the House of Representatives September 26, 

2023. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5110 

AN ACT 

To amend the Elementary and Secondary Edushooting sports. ons for training in archery, hunting, or other weapons does not apply to the use of such weap- on the use of Federal education funds for certain cation Act of 1965 to clarify that the prohibition
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-7504

LEROY L. STATON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

SUPERINTENDENT LEE CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:19-cv-01805-TMC)

Submitted: February 20, 2020 Decided: February 25, 2020

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, RUSHING, Circuit Judge, and TRAXLER, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Leroy Staton, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Leroy Staton seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation 

of the magistrate judge and dismissing Staton’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2018) petition as an 

unauthorized, successive § 2254 petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (2018). 

A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2018). When, as here, the district court 

denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable and that the petition states a debatable claim of the denial of 

a constitutional right. Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. 

McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)). 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Staton has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we 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 this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

April 12, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-5560

TSB Wisconsin Corporation: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_04.15.19.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE FORM
10-K OF FIRSTWAVE TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                           2,029
<SECURITIES>                                     1,631
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,937<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 6,086
<PP&E>                                             922<F1>
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,023
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            2,615
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      2,000
<COMMON>                                            11
<OTHER-SE>                                       7,397
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,023
<SALES>                                          2,430
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,193
<CGS>                                              920
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,209
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 8,019
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   (64)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 (1,912)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       (40)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             (1,952)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    (1,952)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.40)
<FN>
<F1>
A/R AND PPE asset values represent net amounts.
</FN>


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
10.47
 
 November
15, 2007
 
 Michael
R. Tyler
 
 Dear
Mike:
 
 This
letter will amend the addendum dated as of February 28 (the “Addendum”) to the
letter offer of employment to you from Sanmina-SCI, dated as of February 23,
2007. The purpose of this amendment is to bring the Addendum into compliance
with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 4 of the Addendum shall
be amended as follows:
 
 4.    
If your employment is terminated by Sanmina-SCI without “cause”, or if you leave
the Company for “good reason,” as the term “cause” has been previously defined
between you and Sanmina-SCI, and “good reason” is defined in the safe harbor
provisions in Treas. Reg. § 1.409A-1(n) (2), as amended, then you will receive
twelve months of salary, upon execution by you, of an Agreement and General
Release.
 
 All
other provisions of the Addendum remain the same.
 
 Sincerely:
 
 /s/WAYNE
      SHORTRIDGEWayne
      ShortridgeChairman,
      Compensation CommitteeSanmina-SCI
      Corporation
 
 Agreed
to and accepted this 15 day of November, 2007.
 
 /s/
      MICHAEL TYLERMichael
      R.
Tyler
#### Rolf R. VAUGHAN, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. BURLINGTON NORTHERN RAILROAD COMPANY, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 66984.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Oct. 17, 1995.

C. Marshall Friedman, Kenneth E. Rudd, St. Louis, for appellant.

Gerard F. Hempstead, William A. Brasher, St. Louis, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, Rolf Vaughan, brought suit under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U.S.C. § 51 et seq., to recover for injuries he sustained while employed by Defendant, Burlington Northern Railroad Company. Plaintiff now appeals from an adverse jury verdict. We affirm.

An extended opinion would serve no prece-dential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). Defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal for Plain- • *169tiffs noneompliance with Rule 84.04(c) is denied.
#### In the Interest of M.K.S. JUVENILE OFFICER, Respondent, v. Robin DOVER, Appellant.

No. WD 50785.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

March 12, 1996.

Vickie K. Davis, Tatlow & Gump, Moberly, for appellant.

Cynthia A. Suter, Schirmer, Suter & Gaw, Thomas M. Shea, Moberly, for respondent.

Before ELLIS, P.J., and ULRICH and LAURA DENVER STITH, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Natural mother, R.D.A., appeals the termination of her parental rights to her minor child pursuant to § 211.447 RSMo 1994. She asserts the trial court’s determination was not supported by clear, cogent, and convincing evidence.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 42762

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

DILLEN JAMES ENDRES,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2015 Unpublished Opinion No. 616

Filed: September 4, 2015

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the First Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Kootenai County. Hon. Richard S. Christensen, District Judge. 

Order dismissing Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion for reduction of 

sentences, affirmed.

Sara B. Thomas, State Appellate Public Defender; Eric D. Fredericksen, Deputy 

Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

________________________________________________

Before MELANSON, Chief Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and GRATTON, Judge

________________________________________________

PER CURIAM

Dillen James Endres pled guilty to two counts of aggravated assault with an enhancement 

for the use of a firearm, Idaho Code §§ 18-901(a), 19-2520, 18-905(1)(b); second degree arson, 

I.C. § 18-803; and burglary, I.C. § 18-1401. The district court imposed concurrent unified 

sentences of sixteen years, with eight years determinate, for each count of aggravated assault; 

three years determinate for second degree arson; and five years, with three years determinate, for 

burglary. Endres filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion. The district court issued a notice of 

intent to dismiss, allowing Endres time to provide additional information in support of his 
2

motion. Endres failed to file any additional information, and thus the district court dismissed the 

Rule 35 motion. Endres appeals.

A motion for reduction of sentence under I.C.R. 35 is essentially a plea for leniency, 

addressed to the sound discretion of the court. State v. Knighton, 143 Idaho 318, 319, 144 P.3d 

23, 24 (2006); State v. Allbee, 115 Idaho 845, 846, 771 P.2d 66, 67 (Ct. App. 1989). In 

presenting a Rule 35 motion, the defendant must show that the sentence is excessive in light of 

new or additional information subsequently provided to the district court in support of the 

motion. State v. Huffman, 144 Idaho 201, 203, 159 P.3d 838, 840 (2007). An appeal from the 

denial of a Rule 35 motion cannot be used as a vehicle to review the underlying sentence absent 

the presentation of new information. Id. Because no new or additional information in support of 

Endres’s Rule 35 motion was presented, the district court did not abuse its discretion. For the 

foregoing reasons, the district court’s order dismissing Endres’s Rule 35 motion is affirmed.
Exhibit 10.37  AMENDMENT TO GENERAL GROWTH PROPERTIES, INC. SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED 2003 INCENTIVE STOCK PLAN EFFECTIVE MARCH 1, 2010  This
Amendment to the General Growth Properties, Inc. Second Amended and
Restated 2003 Incentive Stock Plan effective December 19, 2008 (the 2003
Plan). Capitalized terms not defined herein shall have the meaning set
forth in the 2003 Plan.  1.Section 10(a) of
the 2003 Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:  (a) 
Automatic Award.  Each Independent Director, on the earlier of
the tenth day of each May, or the first business day thereafter, and the
certification of the director election results for each annual meeting of the
Companys stockholders, automatically shall be granted an annual Award of 10,000
shares of Restricted Stock, provided that such Directors term is continuing
following such date.  Each Independent
Director, upon initial election or appointment to the Board, shall also be
granted an initial Award of 10,000 shares of Restricted Stock; provided however
that if an Independent Director is first elected to the Board at an annual
meeting of the Companys stockholders, then such Director shall not be entitled
to receive such initial Award if an Award is made to such Director based on
such annual meeting date.  2.The following
sentence is hereby added to the end of Section 10(d):  If
an Independent Director resigns from the Board other than in connection with (x) the
applicable Directors Retirement or (y) the applicable Directors failure
to be re-nominated for election upon expiration of such Directors current term
in office, then any or all Shares still subject to Restrictions shall not be
forfeited by such Director and such Shares shall remain subject to Restrictions
until such time as the Restrictions otherwise lapse pursuant to the provisions
of the Plan or the terms of the applicable Restricted Stock Agreement unless
the Committee shall determine, in its discretion, that such Shares shall be
forfeited.  3.The 2003 Plan
is not otherwise modified and is hereby ratified and confirmed.  4.The effective
day of this Amendment shall be March 1, 2010.  5.This Amendment
and the 2003 Plan shall be considered, for all intents and purposes, one
instrument.  In the event of any conflict
between the terms and provisions of this Amendment and the terms and provisions
of the 2003 Plan, the terms and provisions of this Amendment shall, in all
instances, prevail.  If any provision of
this Amendment or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is or
becomes illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions hereof
shall remain in full force and effect and this Amendment shall be interpreted
as if such illegal, invalid or unenforceable provision did not exist herein.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

May 29, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6869

Hartland Controls, LLC: 

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/Notice_of_Product_Exclusions

_5-30-2019.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation

Sincerely,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5201 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide for the mitigation 

of cybersecurity risks by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 

and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 11, 2023 

Mr. THOMPSON of Mississippi introduced the following bill; which was referred 

to the Committee on Homeland Security, and in addition to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such 

provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to provide 

for the mitigation of cybersecurity risks by the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency, and for other purposes. 

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 ‘‘FEMA Cybersecurity 

5 Improvement Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5201 IH

1 SEC. 2. MITIGATING CYBERSECURITY RISKS. 

2 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subsection (a) of section 523 of 

3 the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (6 U.S.C. 321l) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) in the matter preceding paragraph (1), by 

6 striking ‘‘as of the day before the date of the enact7 ment of this section,’’; 

8 (2) by redesignating paragraphs (3) through 

9 (8) as paragraphs (4) through (9), respectively; and 

10 (3) by inserting after paragraph (2) the fol11 lowing new paragraph: 

12 ‘‘(3) mitigating cybersecurity risks (as such 

13 term is defined in section 2200) that could impede 

14 Agency operations;’’. 

15 (b) PLAN FOR FEMA CYBERSECURITY.—Not later 

16 than one year after the date of the enactment of this sec17 tion, the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Man18 agement Agency, in consultation with the Director of the 

19 Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency, shall 

20 submit to the Committee on Homeland Security and the 

21 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the 

22 House of Representatives and the Committee on Home23 land Security and Governmental Affairs of the Senate a 

24 report on the progress of Agency efforts to mitigate cyber25 security risks within the Agency in accordance with paraVerDate Sep 11 2014 05:24 Aug 22, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H5201.IH H5201

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 5201 IH

1 graph (3) of section 523(a) of the Homeland Security Act 

2 of 2002, as amended by subsection (a). 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB