alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 206 (Tuesday, October 26, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 65638]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27040]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting 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: Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis 
Panel, Member Conflict: Auditory Neuroscience.
    Date: October 27, 2010.
    Time: 2:30 p.m. to 3:30 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Rockledge Drive, 
Bethesda, MD 20892. (Telephone Conference Call)
    Contact Person: John Bishop, PhD, Scientific Review Officer, 
Center for Scientific Review, National Institutes of Health, 6701 
Rockledge Drive, Room 5182, MSC 7844, Bethesda, MD 20892, (301) 408-
9664, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#62000b110a0d1208220111104c0c0b0a4c050d14"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1c7e756f74736c765c7f6f6e32727574327b736a">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 
Comparative Medicine; 93.333, Clinical Research, 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: October 20, 2010.
Jennifer S. Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2010-27040 Filed 10-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### William G. RODGERS, Petitioner, v. DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, Respondent.

No. 03-3233.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

DECIDED: Aug. 12, 2003.

ORDER

The parties having so agreed, it is

*893ORDERED that the proceeding is DISMISSED under Fed. R.App. P. 42(b).
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19-20770

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

MICHAEL ALLEN HEAVIN,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:19-CR-760-1

Before DAVIS, SMITH, and SOUTHWICK, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Michael Allen 

Heavin has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance 

with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States v. Flores, 632 

F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Heavin has not filed a response. We have reviewed 

counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We 

concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous 

* 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

May 15, 2020

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 19-20770 Document: 00515418585 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/15/2020
No. 19-20770

2

issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw 

is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the 

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

 Case: 19-20770 Document: 00515418585 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/15/2020
EXHIBIT 31

                           CRUSADE MANAGEMENT LIMITED
                            SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Steve McKerihan, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F,  and all reports on Form 6-K
containing  distribution  or  servicing  reports  filed in  respect  of  periods
included in the year covered by this annual report, of Crusade Global Trust No.1
of 2002;

2. Based on my knowledge,  the  information in these reports,  taken as a whole,
does not  contain  any untrue  statement  of a material  fact or omit to state a
material  fact  necessary  to  make  the  statements   made,  in  light  of  the
circumstances  under which such  statements  were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

3. Based on my knowledge,  the distribution or servicing information required to
be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and  servicing,  or
similar,  agreements,  for  inclusion  in these  reports  is  included  in these
reports;

4. I am responsible for reviewing the activities performed by the servicer under
the pooling and  servicing,  or similar,  agreements and based upon my knowledge
and the annual  compliance  review required under that agreement,  and except as
disclosed in the reports,  the servicer has fulfilled its obligations under that
agreement; and

5. The reports disclose all significant  deficiencies relating to the servicer's
compliance with the minimum  servicing  standards based upon the report provided
by an independent  public  accountant,  after  conducting a review in compliance
with the Uniform  Single  Attestation  Program for  Mortgage  Bankers or similar
procedure,  as set forth in the pooling and servicing,  or similar,  agreements,
that is included in these reports.

In giving the  certifications  above,  I have  reasonably  relied on information
provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties:_

Perpetual Trustees Consolidated Limited


                                               /S/  S. McKerihan
                                               --------------------------------
                                               S. McKerihan
                                               CFO - Crusade Management Limited
Date:  March 25, 2004
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 99-1753

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Nathan Williams, Jr., *

*

Appellant. *

Appeals from the United States

__________ District Court for the Eastern

District of Missouri.

No. 99-1755

__________ [UNPUBLISHED]

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

*

v. *

*

Jerry Tronne Brown, *

*

Appellant. *

___________

 Submitted: September 14, 1999

Filed: September 22, 1999

___________

Before McMILLIAN, FAGG, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.
-2-

___________

PER CURIAM.

Nathan Williams, Jr. and Jerry Tronne Brown (collectively the appellants) appeal

their drug-related convictions. Brown also raises a sentencing argument. Having

carefully considered the record and the appellants' arguments, we conclude the record

supports the district court's decisions because the appellants' contentions are foreclosed

by this court’s holdings, otherwise without merit, or both. 

First, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying Brown's motion for

severance. Second, the district court did not commit error in admitting tape-recorded

conversations between Williams, a coconspirator, and a nontestifying informant or by

permitting the jury to use transcripts of the taped conversations while listening to the

tapes, and, even if there was error, it was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in light

of the overwhelming evidence of the appellants' guilt. Third, we reject Brown's

sentencing argument because the district court's findings about the amount of drugs

involved are not clearly erroneous. 

Because an extended opinion would simply rehash this court’s well-established

precedents, we summarily affirm the appellants' convictions and Brown's sentence. See

8th Cir. R. 47B.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
#### Long and Another *v.*M’Clure and Others.

The day fixed by a justice of the peace for the trial of the right of property in goods taken in execution, must be within five days after the claim to *320the goods is filed; and in reckoning the time, the day on which the claim was filed must be counted.

Monday, *June*1.

APPEAL from the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

*J. Ryman*and *G.*FFolland, for the appellants.

*C. B.*Smith, for the appellees.

Blackford, J.

An execution in favour of the defendants was levied on certain goods. The plaintiffs, on the 28th of June, 1839, filed before a justice of the peace a claim to the goods. The justice fixed the 3d of *July*following as the day of trial of the right of property; and notice was accordingly given to the defendants. On the day so fixed for the trial, judgment was rendered against the defendants by default.

The defendants appealed, and, on their motion, the Circuit Court dismissed the suit.

In these cases, the statute requires the justice to fix the day of trial within five days after the claim is filed. R. Stat. 1838, p. 491. In reckoning the'time, the day on which the claim was filed must be counted. *Ryman*v. Clark, 4 Blackf. 329. The day for the trial was not, therefore, within the prescribed time, and the suit was correctly dismissed.

*Per Curiam.*

The judgment is affirmed with costs.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 209 (Friday, October 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66752]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27399]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. AD10-7-000]


ILP Effectiveness Evaluation 2010; Additional Notice of Multi-
Stakeholder Technical Conference on the Integrated Licensing Process

October 21, 2010.
    As announced in the May 18, 2010, ``Notice of Interviews, 
Teleconferences, Regional Workshops And Multi-Stakeholder Technical 
Conference On The Integrated Licensing Process,'' a technical 
conference will be held on November 3, 2010, from 11 a.m. (EST) to 3 
p.m. (EST) in the Commission Meeting Room at the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. 
While we encourage interested parties to attend the technical 
conference in person, a limited number of phone lines will be available 
on a first-come-first-serve basis for interested parties to participate 
via teleconference. If you would like to participate via 
teleconference, e-mail Stephanie Obadia at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#33405c5152575a5273585652415d40445640471d505c5e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c0b3afa2a1a4a9a180aba5a1b2aeb3b7a5b3b4eea3afad">[email protected]</span></a> by 
October 29, 2010 to receive the toll-free telephone number and password 
to join the teleconference. Also, please register to attend the 
technical conference by e-mailing Stephanie Obadia at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e794888586838e86a78c828695899490829493c984888a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4635292427222f27062d2327342835312335326825292b">[email protected]</span></a> by October 29, 2010.
    For more information about this conference, please contact David 
Turner at (202) 502-6091 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b7f7a6d727f356f6e69757e695b7d7e6978357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="87e3e6f1eee3a9f3f2f5e9e2f5c7e1e2f5e4a9e0e8f1">[email protected]</span></a>.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-27399 Filed 10-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-63,583-28

EX PARTE RONNIE TURNER, Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

CAUSE NO. C-3-W011403-0941085-O 

IN CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT NUMBER THREE

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, the

clerk of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte

Young, 418 S.W.2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convicted of aggravated

robbery and sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. The Second Court of Appeals affirmed his

conviction. Turner v. State, No. 02-05-00427-CR (Tex. App.—Fort Worth Oct. 5, 2006) (not

designated for publication).

Applicant contends, among other things, that he is actually innocent. This application,

however, presents a more serious question. According to this Court’s records, Applicant has filed
2

at least five previous applications that have been dismissed under Article 11.07, § 4 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure. It is obvious from the record that Applicant continues to raise issues that have

been presented and rejected in previous applications or that should have been presented in previous

applications. The writ of habeas corpus is not to be lightly or easily abused. Sanders v. U.S., 373 U.S.

1 (1963); Ex parte Carr, 511 S.W.2d 523 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974). Because of his repetitive claims,

we hold that Applicant’s claims are barred from review under Article 11.07, § 4, and are waived and

abandoned by his abuse of the writ. This application is dismissed.

Therefore, we instruct the Clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals not to accept any future

application pertaining to this conviction unless Applicant is able to show in such an application that

any claims presented have not been raised previously and that they could not have been presented

in a previous application for a writ of habeas corpus. Ex parte Bilton, 602 S.W.2d 534 (Tex. Crim.

App. 1980).

Copies of this ordershall be sent to the Texas Department of Criminal Justice–Correctional

Institutions Division and Pardons and Paroles Division.

Filed: September 11, 2019

Do not publish
Exhibit 31.1 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Eugene Mallette certify that:  1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;  2.   Based on my knowledge, this Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this Report;  3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this Annual Report;  4.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:  a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under my supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this Report is being prepared;  b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  c)   disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and  5.   The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's Board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);  a)   all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  b)   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.   Dated: 1/26/2008                 Signature:/s/Eugene Mallette Eugene Mallette Chief Executive Officer and Director
# The Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU)

		Back to search page	

## Audience

Educators

## Grade Levels

Grades 5-8, Grades 9-12

## Subject

Life Science, Living and Working in Space

***Educator Guide – Additional Resource***

The current spacesuit is a complex garment. Not only does it protect from the extreme conditions of space, it is in itself a mobile life support system with an oxygen supply, electrical power, water-cooling equipment, ventilating fan, and an in-suit drink bag. This section of the Suited for Spacewalking Educator Guide describes the components of the current extravehicular mobility unit, or EMU.The Space Shuttle Extravehicular Mobility Unit (EMU) [631KB PDF file]This document is part of the Suited for Spacewalking Educator Guide.
Order entered April 23, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-01337-CV

PAULA MOORE & ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

J.P. MORGAN CHASE BANK, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 5

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05404-E

ORDER

We GRANT appellants’ motion for extension of time to file brief and ORDER the brief 

tendered to the Clerk of the Court April 21, 2014 filed as of the date of this order.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
## This page has permanently moved.

### If redirect does not occur in 5 seconds, click the following link: https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/research/experiments/explorer/Investigation.html?#id=225
Exhibit 99.1




                                                    May 14, 2004


Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Trust Company
1251 Avenue of the Americas
New York, New York 10020
Attention: Corporate Trust Administration

Wilmington Trust Company
Rodney Square North
1100 North Market Street
Wilmington, Delaware 19890-0001
Attention: W. Chris Sponenberg

           Re:  2002 Annual Statement as to Compliance

Ladies and Gentlemen:

         I, Hideyuki Kitamura, certify that:

     (1) I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K, and all reports on
Form 8-K containing distribution or servicing reports filed in respect of
periods included in the year covered by this annual report, of MMCA Auto Owner
Trust 2002-1;

     (2) Based on my knowledge, the information in these reports, taken as a
whole, does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading as of the
last day of the period covered by this annual report;

     (3) Based on my knowledge, the distribution or servicing information
required to be provided to the trustee by the servicer under the pooling and
servicing, or similar, agreement, for inclusion in these reports is included in
these reports;

     (4) Based on my knowledge and upon the annual compliance statement
included in the report and required to be delivered to the trustee in
accordance with the terms of the pooling and servicing, or similar, agreement,
and except as disclosed in the reports, the servicer has fulfilled its
obligations under the servicing agreement; and

     (5) The reports disclose all significant deficiencies relating to the
servicer's compliance with the minimum servicing standards based upon the
report provided by an independent public accountant, after conducting a review
in compliance with the Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers
or similar procedure, as set forth in the pooling and servicing, or similar,
agreement, that is included in these reports.


Sincerely,

MMCA AUTO RECEIVABLES TRUST


By: /s/ Hideyuki Kitamura
    _____________________________
    Name: Hideyuki Kitamura
    Title: Secretary & Treasurer
## NUMBER 13

- 1 8

- 00 205

- C V

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI

- EDINBURG

PM MANAGEMENT

- PORTLAND NC, LLC D/B/A

TRISUN CARE CENTER COASTAL PALMS AND

SENIOR CARE CENTERS, ET AL.

, Appellant s

,

v.

BENITA MARTINEZ, INDIVIDUALLY AN D

ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF

RUBEN MARTINEZ, DECEASED

, Appellee.

On appeal from the 148th District Court

of Nueces County , Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Benavides, Hinojosa, and Tijerina

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Hinojosa

Appellee Benita Martinez, individually and on behalf of the estate of Ruben

Martinez, deceased (Martinez) filed suit against a ppellant PM Management

- Portland NC,2 LL C d/b/a Trisun Care Center Coastal Palms and Senior Care Centers, LLC (PM

Management) and appellants , Manzoor A. Bevinal, M.D., Bipasha Nath, M.D. , and

Corpus Christi Hospitalists, P.L.L.C. (collectively CC Hospitalists)

. PM Management and

CC Hospitalists have each perfected an interlocutory appeal from the trial court’s order

denying their respective motions to dismiss Martinez’s suit.

PM Management and CC Hospitalists have filed separate unopposed motions to

dismiss the appeal. PM Management represent s t hat it has reached a settlement

agreement with Martinez. CC Hospitalists represent that Martinez has filed a motion to

dismiss her claims against them in the trial court

. The Court, having considered the

documents on file and the unopposed motion s to dismiss, is of the opinion that the

motion s should be granted. See T EX

. R. A PP

. 42.1(a)(1). The motion s to dismiss are

granted, and the appeal is hereby DISMISSED. In accordance with the agreement of the

parties, costs are taxed against the party incur ring same. See id

. R 42.1(d). Having

dismissed the appeal at the appellants ’ request, no motion for rehearing will be

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

L E T ICIA HINOJOSA

Justice

Delivered and filed the

24t h day of September, 2020

.