alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 77016]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke; 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: National Institute of Neurological Disorders 
and Stroke Special Emphasis Panel; R13 Conference Review.
    Date: January 5, 2015.
    Time: 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Neuroscience Center, 6001 
Executive Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: William C. Benzing, Ph.D., Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, Division of Extramural Research, 
NINDS/NIH/DHHS/Neuroscience Center, 6001 Executive Boulevard, Suite 
3208, MSC 9529, Bethesda, MD 20892-9529, 301-496-0660, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#680a0d061201060f1f280509010446060100460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0f6d6a6175666168784f626e66632161666721686079">[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. 93.853, 
Clinical Research Related to Neurological Disorders; 93.854, 
Biological Basis Research in the Neurosciences, National Institutes 
of Health, HHS)


    Dated: December 17, 2014.
Carolyn Baum,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30006 Filed 12-22-14; 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>
#### Robert Frazier, Respondent, *v.*Noel C. Cropsey, Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, First Department,

January 8, 1925.

Landlord and tenant — summary proceedings to dispossess — tenant assumed possession of premises with permission of another tenant — tenant not squatter pursuant to Civil Practice Act, § 1411, subd. 4 — error to submit case to jury — breach by other tenant of covenant against subletting immaterial.

In summary proceedings to dispossess, it was error for the trial court to submit the case to the jury, where it appears that the tenant, whom the landlord sought to remove from the premises, assumed possession of the premises with the permission of another tenant, then entitled to possession, since, under the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act, the tenant proceeded against was not a squatter or intruder.

The question whether the other tenant had breached his covenant against subletting was immaterial, since he had given the tenant in question permission to occupy the premises.

Appeal by the defendant tenant from a final order of the Municipal Court of the City of New York awarding possession of certain premises to the plaintiff landlord.

*Charles Marks,*for the appellant.

*Austin & Austin [Edmund 0. Austin*of counsel], for the respondent.

Per Curiam:

The appellant Cropsey having commenced his occupancy with the permission of the tenant Leone, then entitled to possession, was not a squatter or an intruder within the provisions of subdivision 4 of section 1411 of the Civil Practice Act. The case of *Williams*v. *Alt*(170 N. Y. Supp. 506), affirmed by the Appellate Division (186 App. Div. 235) and later by the Court of Appeals (226 N. Y. 283), is decisive of the question here involved, and the learned trial court was in error in submitting the case to the jury. Since it appeared that the appellant had “ permission ” of the tenant Leone to take occupancy, the question of whether the latter *368had breached his covenant against subletting was wholly immaterial. This court has held in an opinion written by Seabury, J., that the statute in question cannot be availed of where occupancy was given by persons in possession under leases claimed to be wholly void. *(Commonwealth Mortgage Co.*v. *DeWaltoff,*115 N. Y. Supp. 1090, 1092.)

The final order is reversed, with thirty dollars costs, and petition dismissed, with costs.

All concur; present, Guy, O’Malley and Levy, JJ.
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Page 78448]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30460]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2014-N-0001]


Advisory Committees; Filing of Closed Meeting Reports

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that, as 
required by the Federal Advisory Committee Act, the agency has filed 
with the Library of Congress the annual reports of those FDA advisory 
committees that held closed meetings during fiscal year 2014.

ADDRESSES: Copies are available at the Division of Dockets Management 
(HFA-305), Food and Drug Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, 
Rockville, MD 20852, 240-402-7500. You also may access the docket at 
http://www.regulations.gov for the annual reports of those FDA advisory 
committees that held closed meetings during fiscal year 2014. Insert 
the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this document at 
http://www.regulations.gov into the ``Search'' box, clear filter under 
Document Type (left side of screen), and check ``Supporting and Related 
Material,'' then Sort By Best Match (from the drop-down menu; top right 
side of screen), ``ID Number (Z-A)'' or Sort By Best Match (from the 
drop-down menu) ``Title (A-Z),'' also found in the heading of this 
document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa L. Hays, Committee Management 
Officer, Advisory Committee and Oversight Management Staff, Food and 
Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave., Silver Spring, MD 20993-
0002, 301-796-8220.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (5 U.S.C. app.) and 21 CFR 14.60(d), FDA has filed with 
the Library of Congress the annual reports for the following FDA 
advisory committees that held closed meetings during the period October 
1, 2013, through September 30, 2014:
    Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research:

Blood Products Advisory Committee
Cellular, Tissue, and Gene Therapies Advisory Committee
Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee

    National Center for Toxicological Research:

Science Board to the National Center for Toxicological Research

    Annual Reports are available for public inspections between 9 a.m. 
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday at the following locations:
    (1) The Library of Congress, Madison Bldg., Newspaper and Current 
Periodical Reading Room, 101 Independence Ave. SE., Rm. 133, 
Washington, DC; and
    (2) The Dockets Management Branch (HFA-305), Food and Drug 
Administration, 5630 Fishers Lane, Rm. 1061, Rockville, MD 20852.

    Dated: December 22, 2014.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2014-30460 Filed 12-29-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4164-01-P
##### 



EXHIBIT 21.1
 SUBSIDIARIES OF FOUNDRY NETWORKS, INC.
 Name
    
    Jurisdiction of RegistrationFoundry Networks International Inc.
    
    BarbadosFoundry Networks Ltd.
    
    United KingdomFoundry Networks GmbH
    
    GermanyFoundry Networks France SARL
    
    FranceFoundry Networks Singapore, PTE Ltd.
    
    SingaporeFoundry Networks Nederland BV
    
    NetherlandsFoundry Networks Canada Co.
    
    CanadaFoundry Networks Italia Srl.
    
    ItalyFoundry Networks Japan KK
    
    JapanFoundry Networks do Brasil Ltda.
    
    BrazilFoundry Networks Holding Co.
    
    Delaware, U.S.AFoundry Networks Japan-US., LLC.
    
    Delaware, U.S.A
**EXHIBIT 31.1**
**CERTIFICATION**
I, John F. Falcon, certify that:
1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of J.L. French AutomotiveCastings, Inc and Subsidiaries;
2.   Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untruestatement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to makethe statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statementswere made, not misleading with respect to the year covered by this annualreport;
3.   Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other informationincluded in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant asof, and for, the years presented in this annual report;
4.   The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:
     a)     Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, toensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the year in which this annual report is being prepared;
     b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this annual report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on suchevaluation; and
     c)     Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s mostrecent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of anannual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
5.   The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based onour most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):
     a)     All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and
     b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.
March 17, 2004    /s/ JOHN F. FALCON John F. Falcon President and Chief Executive Officer
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

OLNEY PACKER, :

 :

Petitioner, :

 :

vs. : CIVIL ACTION 14-0402-KD-M

 :

LEON FORNISS, :

 :

Respondent. :

ORDER

After due and proper consideration of the issues raised, 

and a de novo determination of those portions of the 

Recommendation to which objection is made (docs. 12, 13), the 

Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge made under 28 U.S.C. § 

636(b)(1)(B) is adopted as the opinion of this Court.

It is ORDERED that this habeas petition be DISMISSED as 

time-barred. It is further ORDERED that any certificate of 

appealability filed by Petitioner be DENIED as he is not 

entitled to appeal in forma pauperis.

DONE this 12th day of March 2015.

s/ Kristi K. DuBose

KRISTI K. DuBOSE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:14-cv-00402-KD-M Document 14 Filed 03/12/15 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2043 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2043

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses for 
                           fiscal year 2024.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, SALARIES AND EXPENSES FOR 
              FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
National Labor Relations Board, Salaries and Expenses for fiscal year 
2024 may not exceed $274,224,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### Orosman Delsol, Appellant, v Family Dollar Stores of New York, Inc., Respondent.

[965 NYS2d 903]

Appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Jefferson County (Hugh A. Gilbert, J.), entered April 17, 2012. The order granted the motion of defendant for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.

It is hereby ordered that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: In this slip and fall action, plaintiff appeals from an order that granted defendant’s motion for summary *1437judgment dismissing the amended complaint. “In slip and fall cases involving the presence of slippery or wet substances, absent evidence that the owner of the premises created a dangerous condition, ‘liability [can] be predicated only on failure of [defendant] to remedy the danger presented by the liquid after actual or constructive notice of the condition’ ” *(Winecki v West Seneca Post 8113,*227 AD2d 978, 978 [1996], quoting *Piacquadio v Recine Realty Corp.,*84 NY2d 967, 969 [1994]). Here, plaintiff relies upon constructive notice, and it is well settled that, “[t]o constitute constructive notice, a defect must be visible and apparent and it must exist for a sufficient length of time prior to the accident to permit defendant’s employees to discover and remedy it” *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]). “By submitting evidence that demonstrated that the defect was not visible and apparent, defendant established that it did not have constructive notice of the defect. Defendant thus met its initial burden” on its motion for summary judgment *(Quinn v Holiday Health & Fitness Ctrs. of N.Y., Inc.,*15 AD3d 857, 858 [2005]; *see Dragotta v Walmart, Inc.,*39 AD3d 800, 800-801 [2007]), and plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact in opposition *(see Breuer v Wal-Mart Stores,*289 AD2d 276, 277 [2001], *lv denied*97 NY2d 610 [2002]). Present — Smith, J.P., Fahey, Carni, Sconiers and Whalen, JJ.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

December 21, 2009 

1214 

Order 

 

December 21, 2009 

139816 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 139816 

 COA: 285560 

Muskegon CC: 07-055641-FC 

CEDRIC DEWONG ALLEN, JR., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 22, 2009 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 21.1

SELECTICA, INC.

SUBSIDIARIES



|                      |  |                                    
|--------------------- |  | -----------------------------------
|COUNTRY OR REGION     |  | OFFICIAL NAME                      
|                      | 
|FOREIGN SUBSIDIARIES: |  |                                    
|                      | 
|Australia             |  | Selectica Australia Pty Ltd.       
|Canada                |  | Selectica Canada, Inc.             
|France                |  | Selectica France SARL              
|Germany               |  | Selectica GmbH                     
|Japan                 |  | Selectica Japan, K.K.              
|Mexico                |  | Selectica Mexico S. de R.L. de C.V.
|Sweden                |  | Selectica Scandinavia AB           
|                      | 
|U.S. SUBSIDIARIES:    |  |                                    
|                      | 
|Delaware              |  | LoanMarket Resources, Inc.         
|Delaware              |  | Wakely Acquisition Corp.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1825 

To clarify that the Federal Right to Try law applies to schedule I substances 

for which a phase I clinical trial has been completed and to provide 

access for eligible patients to such substances pursuant to the Federal 

Right to Try law. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 28, 2023 

Mr. BLUMENAUER (for himself, Ms. MACE, Ms. DEAN of Pennsylvania, Mr. 

BIGGS, and Mr. CORREA) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and in addition to 

the Committee on the Judiciary, 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 clarify that the Federal Right to Try law applies to 

schedule I substances for which a phase I clinical trial 

has been completed and to provide access for eligible 

patients to such substances pursuant to the Federal 

Right to Try law. 

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 ‘‘Right to Try Clarifica5 tion Act’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 1825 IH

1 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

2 Congress finds as follows: 

3 (1) The Trickett Wendler, Frank Mongiello, 

4 Jordan McLinn, and Matthew Bellina Right to Try 

5 Act of 2017 (Public Law 115–176) was enacted in 

6 2018. 

7 (2) Section 561B of the Federal Food, Drug, 

8 and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–0a), as added 

9 by the Act described in paragraph (1) (referred to 

10 in this section as the ‘‘Federal Right to Try law’’), 

11 does not exclude from the application of such law 

12 schedule I substances for which a phase I clinical 

13 trial has been completed. 

14 (3) Multiple schedule I drugs have progressed 

15 through phase I clinical trials and have been des16 ignated by the Food and Drug Administration as 

17 breakthrough therapies under section 506 of the 

18 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 

19 356) because of preliminary clinical evidence indi20 cating that such drugs demonstrate substantial im21 provement over existing therapies, but eligible pa22 tients have not been permitted access to these drugs 

23 pursuant to the Federal Right to Try law. 

24 SEC. 3. AMENDMENT TO FEDERAL RIGHT TO TRY LAW. 

25 Section 561B(b) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cos26 metic Act (21 U.S.C. 360bbb–0a(b)) is amended by insertVerDate Sep 11 2014 03:58 Apr 08, 2023 Jkt 039200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H1825.IH H1825

pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
3 

•HR 1825 IH

1 ing ‘‘any provision of the Controlled Substances Act (21 

2 U.S.C. 801 et seq.) that prohibits the unauthorized use, 

3 possession, distribution, dispensation, or transportation of 

4 an eligible investigational drug,’’ before ‘‘and parts’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
#### WALT DISNEY PRODUCTIONS, Inc. et al. v. SOUVAINE SELECTIVE PICTURES, Inc. et al.

United States District Court S. D. New York.

July 11, 1951.

*775James V. Hayes, New York City (Donovan, Leisure, Newton, Lumbard & Irvine, New York City, for plaintiffs for the motion.

Simon H. Rifkind, New York City (Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison, New York City), for defendant Souvaine Selective Pictures, Inc., opposed.

■ Milton Weisman, New York City (Weis-man, Celler, Quinn, Allan & Spett, New York City), for defendants Picto Corp. and Harry A. Brandt, opposed.

HOLTZOFF, District Judge

(sitting by designation).

The plaintiffs have produced a motion picture entitled “Alice in Wonderland”. It is based on Louis Carroll’s immortal classic of the same name. The defendants have also made a picture by the same title based on the same book. Both pictures are scheduled to be shown in New York at two different theatres at about the same time. The plaintiffs have brought suit to enjoin the defendants from producing their picture on the ground of unfair competition.

This matter is now before this Court on an application for a preliminary injunction to enjoin the showing of the defendants’ picture. The plaintiffs claim that they have acquired property rights by reason of vast sums of money that they have expended in making their picture and in advertising it to the public, so that the title “Alice in Wonderland” has acquired a secondary meaning. Admittedly the book “Alice in Wonderland” is no longer subject to copyright and is as much in the public domain as are Shakespeare’s plays. Anyone has a legal right to make a picture based on Louis Carroll’s book and entitled “Alice in Wonderland”.

Both sides have been working on their respective pictures for a number of years. Apparently the plaintiffs’ production is much more costly and evidently has been more widely advertised, and at greater expense.

The Court is unable to perceive that these circumstances give the plaintiffs an equitable right to secure an injunction against the simultaneous showing of the defendants’ picture. This is the sort of competition that perhaps should be encouraged rather than suppressed. In any event, irrespective of that consideration, it seems to the Court that under the circumstances *776disclosed in this case the plaintiffs have not acquired any right to exclude others from producing or showing simultaneously and in the same neighborhood a rival portrayal of “Alice in Wonderland”.

 The Court might also add that a preliminary injunction is a very drastic remedy and ordinarily is not granted except to maintain the status quo, and even then on a very substantial showing. In this instance to grant the injunction prayed for would practically award to the plaintiffs all of the relief to which they would be entitled were they to prevail at a trial on the merits. Such a preliminary injunction is granted only in unusual situations.

In the light of these considerations the application for a preliminary injunction is denied.