alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 96 (Thursday, May 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 24855]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12251]



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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Medical Research Service Merit Review Committee; Amended Notice 
of Meeting

    The Department of Veterans Affairs gives notice under the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that the Medical Research 
Service Merit Review Committee, formerly scheduled to meet June 5, 
1996, has been rescheduled to meet June 4, 1996, from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. 
at the Holiday Inn Central, 1501 Rhode Island Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC.
    The meeting will be for the purpose of evaluating the scientific 
merit of research conducted in each specialty by Department of Veterans 
Affairs (VA) investigators working in VA Medical Centers and Clinics.
    This meeting will be open to the public up to the seating capacity 
of the room at the start of the meeting to discuss the general status 
of the program. The meeting will be closed to the public after 
approximately one hour from the start for the review, discussion, and 
evaluation of initial and renewal projects.
    The closed portion of the meeting involves: discussion, 
examination, reference to, and oral review of site visits, staff and 
consultant critiques of research protocols and similar documents. 
During this portion of the meeting, discussions and recommendations 
will deal with qualifications of personnel conducting the studies, the 
disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of 
personal privacy, as well as research information, the premature 
disclosure of which would be likely to significantly frustrate 
implementation of proposed agency action regarding such research 
projects. As provided by subsection 10(d) of Public Law 92-463, as 
amended by Public Law 94-409, closing portions of this meeting is in 
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(6) and (9)(B). Because of the limited 
seating capacity of the room, those who plan to attend should contact 
Dr. LeRoy Frey, Chief, Program Review Division, Medical Research 
Service, Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC, (202) 565-
5942, at least five days prior to each meeting. Minutes of the meeting 
and a roster of the members may be obtained from this source.

    Dated: May 8, 1996.

    By Direction of the Secretary.
Heyward Bannister,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12251 Filed 5-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-M
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

FRANKLIN DAVIS

VS. CAUSE NUMBER AP-77,031

THE STATE OF TEXAS

ORDER

The above styled and numbered cause is before this Court on direct appeal from

appellant’s capital murder conviction and sentence of death in Cause No. F-12-12630-Y in

Criminal District Court No. 7 of Dallas County.

The Court is of the opinion the following exhibits should be inspected: 

1. Defense Trial Exhibits A, B, C, E, F, and G (Recordings)

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. 34.6(g)(2), the District Clerk of Dallas County is ordered to file

these exhibits with the Clerk of this Court on or before the 7th day of March, 2016.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS THE 23 DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016 th

PER CURIAM

EN BANC

DO NOT PUBLISH
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 00-40734 Conference Calendar

PAUL K. GRUBB, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus WAYNE POWELL, Etc., ET AL. Defendants, PETER A. BIDWELL, M.D., Defendant-Appellee.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 1:97-CV-566

-------------------- June 14, 2001 Before WIENER, DeMOSS, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Paul K. Grubb (Grubb), prisoner # A0721417, appeals the grant of summary judgment in favor of Peter A. Bidwell, M.D. (Bidwell), who treated Grubb during his incarceration at the Newton County (Texas) Correctional Center, in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Grubb’s motions for appointment of counsel are DENIED. Grubb has not adequately briefed any argument relating to the district court's grant of summary judgment. See Grant v.No. 00-40734 -2- Cuellar , 59 F.3d 523, 524 (5th Cir. 1995). Claims raised for the first time in a reply brief will not be considered. See Yohey v. Collins , 985 F.2d 222, 224 (5th Cir. 1993). Grubb’s appeal is deemed frivolous for failure to brief an appealable issue. Accordingly, the appeal is DISMISSED. 5th Cir. R. 42.2. This court's dismissal of this appeal as frivolous counts as a strike for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). See Adepegba v. Hammons , 103 F.3d 383, 387 (5th Cir. 1996). We caution Grubb that once he accumulates three strikes, he may not proceed in forma pauperis in any civil action or appeal filed while he is incarcerated or detained in any facility unless he is under imminent danger of serious physical injury. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). MOTIONS FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS; SANCTIONS WARNING ISSUED.
NO. 07-06 -043 9-CV IN THE CO URT OF APPEA LS FO R THE S EVEN TH D ISTRI CT O F TEXAS

AT AM AR ILLO PAN EL D JU LY20, 2007

_________

_________

_________

___ PARK T ERRACE LIMIT ED PART NERSHIP, AP PEL LANT v. SAR GON KH ASH AN AN D W IF E, VALEN TINE KH ASH AN , AP PELLEE S

_________

_________

_________

______ FRO M T HE 47 DIS T RI CTCOU RTOF P OT T ERCOU NTY; TH NO. 91, 658 -A; HON. HAL MINER, PRESIDING

_________

_________

_________

____ Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and PIRT LE, JJ. ME MO RAND UM OPI NI ON App ellantPark Te rrace Lim ited Partn ership has f iled a mo tion to dism iss the ap pea l. No d e c is io n o f

t h is Co u rth a vin g b e e n d e li ve re d tod a t e , wegra n tt h e m o t io n . Ac co rd in gl y, the app eal is d ismissed . No motio n for rehea ring w ill be e nte rtaine d an d ou r man dat e w ill is sue fort h with . Tex . R . Ap p. P . 42. 1. Al l cos ts inc ur re d are adj udg ed ag ain st the p arty inc ur ri ng the same. Jam es T . Camp bell Justice
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. James McKEE, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 56552.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Feb. 27, 1990.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 28, 1990.

Application to Transfer Denied May 15, 1990.

Michael D. Burton, St. Louis, for defendant-appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Robert V. Franson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for plaintiff-respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, James McKee, appeals from his conviction, after a jury trial, of possession of cocaine, a schedule II controlled *763substance. He was sentenced as a prior, persistent, class X offender to a term of imprisonment of five years, consecutive to other sentences he had received on other convictions.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion in this case. The conviction of defendant is affirmed. Rule 30.25(b).
**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 Quarterly Report of RMD Technologies, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending February 29, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

 

| (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 results of operations of the Company. |
|-----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated:  April 18, 2008 | By:        /s/ Patrick A. Galliher |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                   | Patrick A. Galliher                                                   |
|                   | President                                                             |
EXHIBIT 23




                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-09712) pertaining to the 1993 Stock Incentive Plan of E.W. Blanch
Holdings, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-65689) pertaining
to the K2 Technologies, Inc. 1994 Stock Plan, K2 Technologies, Inc. 1996 Stock
Plan, K2 Technologies, Inc. 1998 Key Person Stock Option Plan, and the
Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-45261) pertaining to the Non-Employee
Directors' Stock Plan, Directors' Stock Option Plan, Executive Restricted Stock
Incentive Plan, 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, and the Retirement Plan, of our
report dated January 20, 1999, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of E.W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. incorporated by reference in the Annual
Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 1998.


                                             /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP


Dallas, Texas
March 30, 1999
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                               18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Annual Report of Elva International, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form  10-KSB for the  period  ending  December  31,  2004,  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Eric
Danon,  Chief Executive Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

     (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/ Eric Danon
-----------------------------------------
Eric Danon
Chief Executive Officer (or equivalent)


April 15, 2005





------------------------------
This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and  shall not be deemed  filed by the  Company  for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
required by Section 906,  has been  provided to the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its
staff upon request.
Exhibit 10.81

LIBRARY SERVICE AGREEMENT EXTENSION

This Extension Agreement dated as of January 1, 2004 is by and between Hallmark Entertainment, Inc. ("HEI") and Crown Media Distribution, LLC
("CMD").

WHEREAS,
Crown Media Holdings, Inc. ("Crown") and HEI previously entered into an agreement, dated September 28, 2001 (the "Library Service Agreement"), for HEI's services
as administrator and sales representative for the film library owned by Crown (the "Crown Library); and

WHEREAS,
THE Library Services Agreement was subsequently assigned by Crown to CMD on December 14, 2001, following Crown's assignment of its rights in the Crown Library to CMD; and

WHEREAS,
the parties desire to extend the term of the Library Services Agreement;

NOW,
THEREFORE, Crown and HEI hereby agree as follows:

1.     The
term of the Library Services Agreement shall be extended for an additional period of three years, terminating on December 31, 2006, subject to any
earlier termination pursuant to the terms of the Library Service Agreement.

2.     All
other terms and conditions of the Library Service Agreement, including the yearly Service Fee, will remain unchanged and in full force and effect.

IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Extension Agreement as of the date set forth above.

|HALLMARK ENTERTAINMENT, INC.  |  |                         
|----------------------------- |  | ------------------------
|By:                           |  | /s/ANTHONY GUIDO        
|Title:                        |  | EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT
|CROWN MEDIA DISTRIBUTION, LLC |  |                         
|By:                           |  | /s/CHARLES STANFORD     
|Title:                        |  | EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT

---

QuickLinks
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER OF A BATEMENT

Appellate case name: Roni Singer, Formerly Known as Roni S. Williams v. Robert L. Singer

Appellate case number: 01

- 14

- 00 226

- CV

Trial court case number: 20 12

- 71242

Trial court: 247th Judicial District Court of Harris County

Appellant filed a “Motion to Abate Appeal and Order Trial Court to Sign Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law .” In h er motion, a ppellant co nt ends that although the trial court ha s signed a Final Decree of Divorce on December 21, 2013 and a ppellant ha s filed her request for f

indings of f

act and c onclusions of l aw on January 9, 2014 and n otice of p ast d ue f

indings of f

act a nd c onclusions of l aw on January 28, 2014, the trial court has yet to issue f

indings of f

act and c onclusions of l aw.
The trial court must issue f indings of f

act and c onclusions of l aw where the trial court, as here, has rendered a judgment dividing the estate of the parties

. See Panchal v. Panchal , 132 S.W.3d 465 , 466 (Tex. App.

— Eastland 2003, order ) ( per curiam ) (citing T EX

. F AM

. C ODE A NN

. § 6.711 (Vernon Supp. 2003)). A ppellant twice timely requested f indings of f

act and c onclusions of l aw , but the trial court failed to file them within twenty days of the request s

. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 296 , 297.

“ Unless the appellate record affirmatively shows no harm to [a ppellant ] , the failure of the trial court to file properly

- requested findings and conclusions on contested issues is presumed harmful. ” In re Marriage of Rodriguez

, No. 07

- 03

- 0078

- CV

, 2003 WL 21309275, at *1 (Tex. App.

— Amarillo June 6, 2003, no pet.) (citing Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes , 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989)). We conclude that the record does not affirmatively show that a ppellant has not been harmed by the absence of findings of fact and conclusions of law and thus, the trial court ’ s error is not harmless. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 296, 297; Rodriguez , 2003 WL 21309275, at *1 ; see also Magallanes , 763 S.W.2d at 772.Accordingly, we abate this case and remand the c ause to the trial court for further

proceedings. On remand, we order the trial court to enter written f indings of f

act and

c onclusions of l aw on all issues decided by the trial court

. The trial court is further directed to cause the trial court clerk to prepare and file with the appellate clerk a supple mental clerk’s record which includes the trial court’ s f indings of f

act and

c onclusions of l aw , separate and apart from docket sheet notation

. The supplemental clerk’s record shall be filed in this Court no later than 25 days from the date of this order.
T h is appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this Court’s active docket. The appeal will be reinstated on this Court’s active docket when a supplemental clerk’s record that compl ies with this order is filed with the Clerk of this Cour t. It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Laura C. Higley

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: July 31, 2014
Form of Nonqualified Stock Option Grant



 Exhibit 10.1 
 NONQUALIFIED STOCK OPTION GRANT 
 FOR NONEMPLOYEE DIRECTORS 
 Granted Under 
 MILLIPORE
CORPORATION 1999 STOCK INCENTIVE PLAN 
 (Amended and Restated April 26, 2006) 
 Stock Option granted by Millipore Corporation, a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) to [First Name, Last Name] (the
“Optionee”), pursuant to the Millipore Corporation 1999 Stock Incentive Plan (the “Plan”). 
 It is understood and agreed
that the following terms and conditions shall govern the option: 
 1. Grant of Option. This certificate evidences the grant by the Company on
[Grant Date] to the Optionee of an option to purchase, in whole or in part, on the terms herein provided, a total of [Number of shares] shares of Common Stock of the Company (the “Shares”) at $[Closing
share price on date prior to Grant Date] per Share. The Final Exercise Date of this option (as that term is used in the Plan) is [date ten years after Grant Date]. 
 This option is exercisable in the following installments prior to the Final Exercise Date: 
 [Vesting
schedule] 
 2. Exercise of Option. Each election to exercise this option shall be in writing, signed by the Optionee or by the
Optionee’s executor or administrator or the person or persons to whom this option is transferred by will or the applicable laws of descent and distribution (the “Legal Representative”), and received by the Company at its principal
office, accompanied by this certificate and payment in full as provided in the Plan. The purchase price may be paid by delivery of cash, certified check, bank draft, money order, or other payment medium approved by the Company. In the event that
this option is exercised by the Optionee’s Legal Representative, the Company shall be under no obligation to deliver Shares hereunder unless and until the Company is satisfied as to the authority of the person or persons exercising this option.

 3. Non-Transferability of Option. This option is not transferable by the Optionee other than by will or the laws of descent and distribution, and
is exercisable during the Optionee’s lifetime only by the Optionee. 
 4. Provisions of the Plan. This option is subject to the provisions of the
Plan. 







 5. Special Provisions. This option is automatically subject to the “Special Exercise Period” provided
under the Plan (without further consent of the Company) if the Optionee’s services as a director terminate due to retirement at age 72 or such other age as the Board of Directors may determine from time to time. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this option to be executed under its corporate seal by its duly authorized officer. This option shall take
effect as a sealed instrument. 
 Very truly yours, 
 MILLIPORE CORPORATION 
  

			
	By:	 	  

		 	
		 	[Authorized Officer]
#### William Lonzo WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 56246.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

May 15, 1990.

Michael L. Henderson, Clayton, Lew A. Kollias, Nancy McKerrow, Columbia, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, William Lonzo Washington, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing. We have reviewed his allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel, the record on which they are based and the motion court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find that the court’s findings and conclusions are not clearly erroneous and *808also find that an extended opinion would have no precedential value. We affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum has been provided to the parties, solely for their information, explaining the basis for our decision.
#### Edmond SAFFOLD, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 48959.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 5, 1994.

Susan L. Hogan, Appellate Defender, Kansas City, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John M. Morris, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HANNA, P.J., and BRECKENRIDGE and ELLIS, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from the denial of a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Principal Executive Officer 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 Quarterly Report of pSivida Corp. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2011, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Paul Ashton, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:



| | 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 results of operations of the Company.
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 8, 2011



|                |  |                                      
|--------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|/s/ Paul Ashton
|Name:           |  | Paul Ashton                          
|Title:          |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
|                |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
Order filed January 9, 2020. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-19-00106-CV

____________

IN RE DEAN E. SMITH, Relator

On Appeal from the 257th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2009-33707

ORDER

The court withdraws its memorandum opinion of November 14, 2019, and 

its ruling on relator’s Motion to Dismiss for Mootness. Relator’s petition for writ 

of mandamus and Motion to Dismiss for Mootness remain pending before the 

court.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Jewell and Bourliot.
Case 2:17-mj-09486-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 1 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-09486-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 2 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-09486-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 3 of 4
Case 2:17-mj-09486-ESW Document 1 Filed 10/30/17 Page 4 of 4
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

United States of America, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Jason Matthew Henke, 

Defendant.

No. 17-4313PO-001-PCT-CDV

ORDER 

 The defendant appeared in court with counsel. The defendant's probable cause 

hearing was waived and the detention hearing was held on the record including a proffer 

by defense counsel. The Court finds probable cause to believe the defendant violated the 

terms of his supervised probation as alleged in the petition. The Court further finds, 

pursuant to Rule 32.1(a)(6), that defendant has failed to show by clear and convincing 

evidence that he is not a flight risk or a danger. 

 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the defendant shall be bound over for further 

proceedings on the petition to revoke his supervised probation. 

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the defendant is detained as flight risk and danger, 

pending further revocation proceedings. 

 Dated this 1st day of July, 2019.