alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 192 (Thursday, October 2, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57373]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22847]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: Microbiology, Infectious Diseases and AIDS 
Initial Review Group; Microbiology and Infectious Diseases B 
Subcommittee.
    Date: October 24, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Bethesda North Marriott Hotel & Conference Center, 5701 
Marinelli Road, Bethesda, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Gary S. Madonna, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities, 
National Institutes of Health/NIAID, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 
7616, Bethesda, MD 20892, 301-496-3528, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#492e24787b3e09272021672e263f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4d3d98586c3f4dadddc9ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Allergy and Infectious 
Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; CFAR.
    Date: November 13-14, 2008.
    Time: 8 a.m. to 6 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Hilton Washington/Rockville, 1750 Rockville Pike, 
Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Sujata Vijh, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Scientific Review Program, Division of Extramural Activities. NIAID/
NIH/DHHS, 6700B Rockledge Drive, MSC 7616, Bethesda, MD 20892-7616, 
301-594-0985, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02746b686a71426c6b636b662c6c6b6a2c656d74"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afd9c6c5c7dcefc1c6cec6cb81c1c6c781c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.
(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.855, 
Allergy, Immunology, and Transplantation Research; 93.856, 
Microbiology and Infectious Diseases Research, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)

    Dated: September 19, 2008.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
 [FR Doc. E8-22847 Filed 10-1-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# United States Court of Appeals For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-2437

___________________________ David Earl Wattleton lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v. Tanya Hodge, Trust Fund Administrator, Federal Medical Center Rochester

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________ Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota

____________ Submitted: March 18, 2020 Filed: March 23, 2020 [Unpublished]

____________ Before GRUENDER, BEAM, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________ PER CURIAM.David Wattleton appeals the district court’s 1 order dismissing his pro se civil

rights complaint and denying him leave to amend his complaint. Upon careful de novo review, we conclude the district properly dismissed Wattleton’s complaint for failure to state a claim. See Plymouth Cty. v. Merscorp, Inc. , 774 F.3d 1155, 1158 (8th Cir. 2014) (standard of review). We also conclude the district court properly denied Wattleton leave to amend his complaint because his proposed new claims were meritless. See Popoalii v. Corr. Med. Servs. , 512 F.3d 488, 497 (8th Cir. 2008) (explaining that a court may deny a motion to amend when amendment would be futile). Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1 The Honorable Eric C. Tostrud, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Becky R. Thorson, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota. -2-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

John Zerbe, Trustee

v. NH Civil No. 05-ds-21-JD

PR Civil No. 02-2357

Gabriela Alejandra Guzman Pinal

and Luis Olmos Dueas

O R D E R

On July 19, 2006, the parties filed a notice of settlement

in this case, which was contingent upon the approval of the

bankruptcy court. John Zerbe, Trustee, filed a notice of the

settlement in the bankruptcy court, and in response, on August

29, 2006, that court ordered the Trustee to file a copy of the

settlement agreement. The Trustee moved to file the settlement

agreement, and a hearing was set for October 11, 2006. The

bankruptcy court’s docket indicates that the hearing was held as

scheduled and that the bankruptcy court approved the settlement

on October 18, 2006, “as per Opinion and Order entered in

Adversary Proceeding No. 06-87 (dkt #33).”

Adversary Proceeding No. 06-87 is a case brought by Cast

Entertainment, Inc., against Alejandra Guzman, the same defendant

as in this case. In that case, Cast Entertainment v. Guzman,

judgment was entered on October 12, 2006, as follows:

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 75 Filed 10/30/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Judgment is hereby entered dismissing the complaint

with prejudice pursuant to the terms and conditions of

the Settlement and release Agreement executed by John

Zerbe as Trustee for the Estate of Alfredo Castellanos

Bayouth, Alfredo Castellanos Bayouth and Gabriela

Alejandra Guzman, a/k/a Alejandra Guzman, filed on

September 15, 2006 (dkt. #27), and approved in open

court during the October 11, 2006, [sic] provided the

payment $100,000.00 is deposited with the Clerk of this

Court.

Id. (doc. no. 33). The parties have not filed the settlement

agreement or a notice that the bankruptcy court has approved the

settlement in this court.

Conclusion

For the foregoing reasons, the court will dismiss this case

with prejudice based upon the parties’ settlement as approved by

the bankruptcy court unless the parties show cause on or before

November 8, 2006, as to why the case should remain open. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

 (Sitting by designation.)

October 30, 2006

cc: Alfredo Castellanos-Bayouth, Esquire

Angel E. Rotger-Sabat, Esquire

USDC-PR, Clerk

Case 1:05-ds-00021-JD Document 75 Filed 10/30/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 00-cr-145-01-JD

Daniel P. Courchesne

O R D E R

On September 22, 2006, defendant appeared for a “probable

cause” hearing under Fed. R. Crim. P. 32.1 on three alleged

violations of conditions of supervision. Defendant stipulated to

probable cause on the violations. I therefore find probable

cause to hold him for a revocation hearing. 

Defendant sought bail conditions under Rule 32.1(a)(6). 

Under Rule 32.1(a)(6) defendant bears the burden of establishing

by clear and convincing evidence that he will not flee and that

he poses no danger to any other person or to the community. 

Defendant is unemployed, living in a $1,000 a month apartment

with an addict, has tested dirty twice in the last month,

admitted using yesterday and was found with a lot of drug

paraphernalia in his apartment. He is a danger to the community. 

There are no conditions which are likely to assure the safety of

the community. 

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that the defendant be detained

Case 1:00-cr-00145-JD Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 Page 1 of 2
2

pending trial. 

The defendant is committed to the custody of the Attorney

General or his designated representative for confinement in a

corrections facility separate, to the extent practicable, from

persons awaiting or serving sentences or being held in custody

pending appeal. The defendant shall be afforded a reasonable

opportunity for private consultation with defense counsel. On

order of a court of the United States or on request of an

attorney for the government, the person in charge of the

corrections facility shall deliver the defendant to the United

States Marshal for the purpose of an appearance in connection

with a court proceeding. 

SO ORDERED.

_________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: September 22, 2006

cc: James D. Gleason, Esq.

 William E. Morse, Esq.

 U.S. Marshal

 U.S. Probation

Case 1:00-cr-00145-JD Document 33 Filed 09/22/06 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-40517

JIMMY DIAZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

B. ALDERSON, Police Officer; SERGEANT RODRIGUEZ; POLICE CHIEF 

MARK WICKER; SERGEANT JESSE GARZA; CLUTE MUNICIPALITY(S); 

PUBLIC SERVANT JESSE SOLEY; OFFICER ANDERSON BRANDON,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:11-CV-545

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DENNIS, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Jimmy Diaz, Texas prisoner # 1737301, filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 

complaint against law enforcement officials. The district court denied Diaz’s 

motion for leave to file a supplemental response to Defendants’ motion for 

summary judgment and dismissal. Diaz appeals this order. The district 

court’s docket sheet reflects that Diaz’s § 1983 complaint remains pending. 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

January 7, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 13-40517 Document: 00512491634 Page: 1 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
No. 13-40517

We must sua sponte examine whether we have jurisdiction to consider 

the appeal. See Martin v. Halliburton, 618 F.3d 476, 481 (5th Cir. 2010). 

Federal appellate courts only have jurisdiction over appeals from (1) final 

orders pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291; (2) orders that are deemed final due to a 

jurisprudential exception, such as the collateral order doctrine; (3) 

interlocutory orders specified in 28 U.S.C. § 1292(a); and (4) interlocutory 

orders that are properly certified for appeal by the district court pursuant to 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b) or § 1292(b). Dardar v. Lafourche Realty 

Co., 849 F.2d 955, 957 (5th Cir. 1988); Save the Bay, Inc. v. U.S. Army, 639 

F.2d 1100, 1102 & n.3 (5th Cir. 1981). The order denying Diaz’s motion for 

leave to file a supplemental response to Defendants’ motion for summary 

judgment and dismissal does not fall within any of these categories.

Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the appeal, and the appeal 

is DISMISSED. Diaz’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal 

is DENIED. 

2

 Case: 13-40517 Document: 00512491634 Page: 2 Date Filed: 01/07/2014
6

A.2. Average Size of Non-real-estate Bank Loans Made to FarmersThousands of dollars

Size of loan Si

Purpose of loan (thousands of dollars) 

Other Farm 

current machinery 3 10 25 100

All Feeder Other operating and to to to and Sm

Period loans livestock livestock expenses1 equipment Other2 9 24 99 over mid

1995...... 33.77 49.68 26.74 18.46 15.59 93.60 3.73 14.72 44.94 451.25 1996...... 39.25 59.00 24.23 26.00 17.23 95.19 3.73 14.95 45.22 545.93 1997...... 31.40 42.33 25.99 16.82 17.79 97.18 3.76 14.86 45.78 385.35 1998...... 32.36 41.46 24.32 18.16 28.10 127.91 3.73 14.78 45.40 357.03 1999...... 30.92 35.63 26.42 21.43 31.82 101.12 3.82 14.83 46.80 322.06 2000...... 26.30 43.25 25.96 21.27 29.27 48.49 3.85 14.94 45.33 258.41 2001...... 29.40 39.71 29.75 20.03 31.76 62.16 3.87 14.76 45.45 269.62 2002...... 28.77 47.63 33.26 21.43 24.44 62.04 3.72 15.02 45.83 269.92 2003...... 30.74 67.77 36.98 21.44 33.40 64.60 3.75 14.81 47.26 276.39 2004...... 39.38 68.02 52.88 25.95 47.58 110.83 3.81 14.82 46.26 360.52 2005...... 40.42 69.13 47.05 26.41 63.49 99.94 3.83 14.62 47.14 333.02 2006...... 49.71 65.53 59.36 32.84 74.12 138.48 4.90 14.96 46.68 340.26 2003: Q4... 35.13 79.92 42.70 23.13 28.16 75.70 4.11 14.85 47.42 313.07 2004: Q1... 45.07 60.59 43.04 35.57 56.02 98.51 3.86 15.02 47.24 341.06  Q2... 32.01 47.74 36.25 21.95 26.77 116.76 3.73 15.17 45.83 358.08  Q3... 33.42 32.56 62.64 18.04 42.06 143.63 3.76 14.56 44.91 359.39  Q4... 49.42 108.90 70.44 30.21 75.92 90.23 3.96 14.46 46.63 385.43 2005: Q1... 40.23 52.36 44.37 36.66 35.31 54.11 3.57 14.72 49.15 290.01  Q2... 42.75 70.57 38.44 23.68 78.69 132.29 3.95 14.60 46.31 371.83  Q3... 38.87 65.13 67.97 22.19 73.29 105.64 3.84 14.39 46.29 397.07  Q4... 39.08 83.40 41.58 24.45 43.37 97.49 3.92 14.83 46.73 270.45 2006: Q1... 43.76 45.56 49.62 37.78 39.28 96.24 3.81 15.09 47.28 288.50  Q2... 51.32 51.29 50.51 32.34 123.28 132.75 5.39 14.82 45.54 364.91  Q3... 51.48 81.93 89.64 26.57 50.49 172.18 5.41 15.01 45.16 377.96  Q4... 53.61 80.54 57.82 33.44 71.05 155.58 5.56 14.96 48.79 341.00 2007: Q1... 58.33 76.05 54.29 50.88 32.69 120.07 5.34 15.10 47.15 296.76  Q2... 39.55 48.25 33.93 32.08 41.55 95.17 5.40 15.11 45.96 276.68  Note. Data are estimates from the Federal Reserve System’s Survey of the Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers. Quarterly estimates aannual rate and are based on loans made during the first full week of the second month of the quarter. 1. Loans used primarily to finance such items as current crop production expenses and the care and feeding of livestock (including p 2. Typically loans for which the lender does not know the purpose. 3. Portfolios with $25 million or less in farm loans. 4. Portfolios with more than $25 million in farm loans.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> BD
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF FINANCIAL CONDITION AND THE CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS
OF EARNINGS AS OF MARCH 28, 1997 AND FOR THE THREE MONTHS ENDED AND THE NOTES
THERETO AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS FILED IN THE 1997 JEFFERIES GROUP, INC. FIRST QUARTER 10-Q FILING.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-28-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                         116,901
<RECEIVABLES>                                  180,268
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                        1,497,887
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                            244,783
<PP&E>                                          33,421
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,217,604
<SHORT-TERM>                                    28,500
<PAYABLES>                                     205,967
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                          1,392,832
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                             159,089
<LONG-TERM>                                     53,030
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           188
<OTHER-SE>                                     191,752
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,217,604
<TRADING-REVENUE>                               40,220
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                            13,895
<COMMISSIONS>                                   64,843
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                   26,957
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,899
<COMPENSATION>                                  77,010
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 21,567
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                      21,567
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    11,397
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .50
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Criminal No. 08-cr-109-01-JD

Cedric Ross

O R D E R

The assented to motion to reschedule jury trial (document no.

10 ) filed by defendant is granted.

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days. The court finds that the ends of justice served by granting

a continuance outweigh the best interest of the public and the

defendant in a speedy trial, 18 U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), for the

reasons set forth in the motion.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

Date: December 23, 2008

cc: Jonathan R. Saxe , AFD

Terry L. Ollila, AUSA

U.S. Marshal

U.S. Probation

Case 1:08-cr-00109-JD Document 11 Filed 12/23/08 Page 1 of 1
#### PRENTISS MERCANTILE CO. et at. V. THURMAN et al.

No. 31783.

Supreme Court of Mississippi, Division A.

June 10, 1935.

Livingston & Milloy, of Prentiss, for appellants.

C. E. Thompson and O. *G.*Luper, both of Prentiss, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

The appellant by an original bill alleges that the appellees executed to It a deed of trust to secure a debt due it by them. The deed of trust, after describing certain property conveyed thereby, proceeds: “Also, any Increase of all property, real or personal, that may be hereafter acquired by the parties of the first part (the appellees) by purchase or otherwise, the legal title of which under said trustee, his successors and assigns we warrant and agree forever to defend.” The bill, filed about three years after the execution of the deed of trust, alleges that there is a balance of $468.68 due on the indebtedness, secured by the deed of trust; that the appel-lees have acquired and have in their possession six bales of cotton; that they are insolvent and have no other property out of which the appellant can collect the debt duo it; and that they are about to dispose of the cotton.

The prayer of the bill is for a decree for the amount of the debt due the appellant, the subjection of the cotton to the lien of the deed of trust, and that the cotton be impounded (we presume by a writ of sequestration) for subjection to the payment of any amount found to be due the appellant.

A demurrer to this bill was sustained.

 The appellant says that its bill presents (1) a case for the enforcement of a lien, and, if not, then (2) a ease for equitable relief independent of the claimed lien. We are not here concerned with the validity vel non of this deed of trust in an action at law, for the suit is in equity, and it is settled that an “after-acquired” property clause in a mortgage or deed of trust is valid and enforceable in equity, and that the description of such property here is sufficient. Bacot v. Varnado, 91 Miss. 825, 47 So. 113; Central Trust Co. v. Kneeland, 138 U. S. 414, 11 S. Ct. 357, 34 L. Ed. 1014; 1 Jones on Mortgages (8th Ed.) §§ 208 and 209.

If the court below, as intimated in the appellant’s brief, sustained the demurrer on *747the theory that such mortgages are limited l>y section 2130, Code 1930, to property acquired within a stated period not to exceed twelve months, an erroneous construction was thereby put on the statute. That statute does not grant the right to execute mortgages on after-acquired property, but provides only (1) when such mortgages shall be valid as to creditors, and (2) that the mortgagors may pay the secured debts before the maturity thereof.

The first of the appellant’s claimed grounds for relief being valid, the demurrer should have been overruled, and we have no occasion to decide the second.

Reversed and remanded.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-19-PB

Anthony Seward

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

trial scheduled for March 3, 2009, citing the need for additional

time to complete discovery and engage in plea negotiations. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from March 3, 2009 to June 2, 2009. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 34 Filed 02/11/09 Page 1 of 2
2

The February 18, 2009 final pretrial conference is continued

to May 20, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. 

No further continuances.

SO ORDERED.

 /s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

February 11, 2009

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Debra Walsh, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00019-SM Document 34 Filed 02/11/09 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.0



WRITTEN CERTIFICATION of

CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER and CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT to 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of EFJ, Inc.
(the Company), each hereby certifies that, to the best of each of their knowledge that:



(1) the Companys Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ending September 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (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.





/S/

Michael E. JalbertMichael E. Jalbert Chief Executive Officer November 1, 2005






/S/

Jana Ahlfinger BellJana Ahlfinger Bell Chief Financial Officer November 1, 2005






The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350.