alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 32 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10537]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3829]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Notice of a Public Meeting on Assessing Future Regulatory 
Research Needs

AGENCY: U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) will hold a 
fourth and final meeting of nuclear experts from the government, the 
nuclear industry, academia, and the public on February 21, 2001. As a 
result of the first two meetings, the nuclear experts issued a draft 
report composed of the individual views of the experts on the role and 
direction of regulatory research. The draft report contains a number of 
recommendations. The third meeting focused on strategies for 
implementing recommendations and briefings by the NRC licensing offices 
and the regions. The purpose of this meeting is to review, discuss, and 
propose individual recommendations on the role and future direction of 
regulatory research for Commission consideration. The Expert Panel will 
also discuss their perspectives and responses to questions posed to the 
panel by NRC Chairman Richard A. Meserve. The meeting is open to the 
public and all interested parties may attend.

DATES: The meeting will be held from 9:15 a.m. to 5 p.m. on February 
21, 2001, at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) 
located at 1800 K Street, NW., in Washington, DC (corner of 18th and K 
Streets). The telephone number for CSIS is 202-775-3115 (Lisa Hyland).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions with respect to this meeting 
should be referred to James W. Johnson, Office of Nuclear Regulatory 
Research, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission at (301) 415-6293; fax 
(301) 415-5153; E-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#18726f7258766a7b367f776e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3998499b39d8190dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parking is available in the vicinity of the 
CSIS location for a modest cost. CSIS can also be reached by Metro. 
CSIS is located one block west of the Farragut North Metro stop on the 
Red Line and one block north of the Farragut West Metro stop on the 
orange and blue lines. Seating for the public is limited and therefore 
will be on a first-come, first-serve basis.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland this 9th day of February 2001.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Ashok C. Thadani,
 Director, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, U.S. Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission.
[FR Doc. 01-3829 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0199 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,
v. LAVODRICK TERELLE HOGUES,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including October 12, 2022, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

September 2 2022

09/02/2022

Case Number: DA 22-0199
#### Vincent Michael COLE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. BALTIMORE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT, (Northeast); Officer Rafael Garcia, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 15-7322.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 19, 2016.

Decided: Jan. 21, 2016.

Vincent Michael Cole, Appellant Pro Se. Kristen Elissa Hitchner, Baltimore City Law Department, Baltimore, Maryland; Michael Lawrence Marshall, Schlachman, Belsky & Weiner, PA, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Before WILKINSON, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Vincent Michael Cole appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2012) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. *Cole v. Balt. City Police Dep’t, No.*8:14-cv-02787-PWG, 2015 WL 4647799 (D.Md. Aug. 6, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are *169adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

*AFFIRMED.*
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

1331 PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE, NW

SUITE 520N

WASHINGTON, DC 20004

October 5, 2012

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Wednesday, October 17, 2012

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (entry from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Black Castle Mining Co., Docket 

Nos. WEVA 2006-891-R et al.; and Secretary of Labor v. Michael 

Vira, employed by Black Castle Mining Co., Docket No. WEVA 

2007-421. (Issues include whether the Administrative Law Judge 

erred in concluding that pre-shift and on-shift examinations 

conducted by the operator were adequate.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Jean Ellen (202) 434-9950 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD Relay / 

1-800-877-8339 for toll free.
1 The Honorable Richard W. Goldberg, Judge for the United States Court of

International Trade, sitting by designation.

2 The Honorable Andrew W. Bogue, United States District Judge for the District of South Dakota, sitting by designation.

3 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(b), the Chief Judge certified the existence of a judicial emergency necessitating the designation of a panel consisting of fewer than two members of the Court of Appeals.



## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 00-3440

___________ United States of America, * * Plaintiff-Appellee, * * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * Eastern District of Missouri * Vernell Butcher * [UNPUBLISHED] * Defendant-Appellant. *

___________ Submitted: April 10, 2001 Filed: July 5, 2001

___________ Before LOKEN, Circuit Judge, and GOLDBERG 1 and BOGUE, 2 Judges. 3

___________ PER CURIAM.4 The Honorable Donald J. Stohr, District Judge, United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Missouri. -2- Appellant, Vernell Butcher, was convicted by a jury on June 13, 2000, of being a felon in possession of a firearm. See 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) (1994). Butcher received a 300-month sentence and a five-year supervised release term. Butcher appeals the decision of the district court4 to deny his motion for a mistrial based on the allegedly improper remarks made by the government prosecutor during closing argument. Additionally, Butcher claims that the district court’s use of the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction impermissibly lowered the government’s burden of proof. We affirm the decision of the district court. After a careful examination of the record, this Court finds that the trial court did not commit error by denying Butcher’s motion for a mistrial, see United States v. Wadlington , 233 F.3d 1067, 1077 (8 th Cir. 2000) (In assessing the prejudicial impact of potential prosecutorial misconduct, the Court considers (1) the cumulative effect of the misconduct, (2) the strength of the properly admitted evidence, and (3) the curative actions taken by the district court), or by giving the jury the Eighth Circuit’s Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction. See United States v. Harris , 794 F.2d 84, 85 (8 th Cir. 1992)(Eighth Circuit’s explicit approval of Reasonable Doubt Jury Instruction). Under Eighth Circuit Rule 47B, no further commentary is warranted. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA

Nos. DA 23-0332

STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee,

v.

DAVID ANDREW BOUCHER,

Defendant and Appellant.

_______________________________________________________________

ORDER

Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, 

and good cause appearing, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension 

of time to and including October 10, 2024, within which to prepare, file, 

and serve the Appellant’s Reply Brief.

No further extension will be granted.

Electronically signed by:

Mike McGrath

Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

August 27 2024

08/27/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0332
```

[Congressional Bills 103th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1781 Introduced in House (IH)]

103d CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1781

To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit nonparty 
   multicandidate political committee contributions in elections for 
                Federal office, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 21, 1993

Mr. Gilchrest introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                   Committee on House Administration

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 to prohibit nonparty 
   multicandidate political committee contributions in elections for 
                Federal office, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION. 1. PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS BY NONPARTY MULTICANDIDATE 
              POLITICAL COMMITTEES IN ELECTIONS FOR FEDERAL OFFICE.

    Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
441a) is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
    ``(i)(1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this Act, no 
nonparty multicandidate political committee may make any contribution 
to a candidate for Federal office.
    ``(2) As used in this subsection, the term `multicandidate 
political committee' has the meaning given that term in subsection 
(a)(4).''.

SEC. 2. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTION PROHIBITION OF CONTRIBUTIONS 
              FROM INDIVIDUAL NONRESIDENTS OF THE CONGRESSIONAL 
              DISTRICT.

    Section 315 of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 (2 U.S.C. 
441a), as amended by section 1, is further amended by adding at the end 
the following new subsection:
    ``(j) A candidate for the office of Representative in, or Delegate 
or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress may not accept contributions 
from an individual who is not a resident of the congressional district 
involved.''.

                                 <all>
```
2014-0445.

#### In re Wiles v. Twelfth Dist. Court of Appeals.

In Procedendo. On motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and Pfeifer, O’Donnell, Lanzinger, Kennedy, French, and O’Neill, JJ., concur.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, November 30, 2023.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, November 30, 2023

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A24D0146. HAROLD LEE DOBY v. THE STATE.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby GRANTED. The Appellant may file a Notice of Appeal within 10 days of the date of 

this order. The Clerk of Superior Court is directed to include a copy of this order in the record 

transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

LC NUMBERS:

2019RCCR00615
Form of Notice of Grant of Stock Options



 Exhibit 10.96 
  

			
	  	  	Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
	Notice of Grant of Stock Options	  	ID: 33-0303583
	and Option Agreement	  	15231 Barranca Parkway
		  	Irvine, CA 92618
	  	  	 (949) 727-3157
  


  

			
	(Insert grantee name)	  	Option Number: (Insert option number)
	(Insert grantee street address)	  	Plan: (Insert stock option plan)
	(Insert grantee City, State, Zip Code)	  	 ID: (Insert ID)
  


 Effective (insert grant date), you have been granted a(n) (insert Incentive or Non-qualified) Stock Option to buy
(insert number of shares) shares of Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the Company) stock at $(insert exercise price) per share. 
 The total option price of the
shares granted is $(insert total option price). 
 Shares in each period will become fully vested on the date shown. 
  

							
	 Shares
	  	Vest Type	 	Full Vest	 	Expiration
	 (insert number of shares vesting)
	  	(insert vest type)	 	(insert date)	 	(insert date)

  
  

 By your signature and the Company’s signature below, you and the Company agree that these options are granted and governed by the terms and conditions of the
Company’s Stock Option Plan as amended and the Option Agreement, all of which are attached and made a part of this document. 
  

  

					
			
	   	 		 	   
	 Cortex Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
	 		 	 Date

			
	   	 		 	   
	 (Insert grantee name)
	 		 	 Date
11 TH C OURT OF A PPEALS E ASTLAND , T EXAS J UDGMENT
Sean Acrey and Susan H. Acrey
, * From the 236th District Court of Tarrant County, Trial Court No. 236

- 246292

- 10

.
Vs. No. 11

- 14

- 00025

- CV * April 29, 2016
Langston Land Partners, LP; * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, J

. Langston Mineral Partners, LP; (Panel consists of: Wright, C.J., Cynthia Langston Schmiediche; and Willson , J. , and Bailey, J. ) Carol Langston Mathis,
This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court ’ s opinion, the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed. The costs incurred by reason o f this appeal are taxed ninety percent against Sean Acrey and Susan H. Acrey, and ten percent against Langston Land Partners, LP; Langston Mineral Partners, LP; Cynthia Langston Schmiediche; and Carol Langston
Mathis.
1 The Honorable Rodney S. Webb, United States District Judge for the District of North Dakota. 

## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 06-1828

___________ Aaron M. Deroo, * * Appellant, * * Appeal from the United States v. * District Court for the * District of North Dakota. United States of America, * * [UNPUBLISHED] Appellee. *

___________ Submitted: January 29, 2007 Filed: February 1, 2007

___________ Before COLLOTON, HANSEN, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Aaron Deroo appeals the district court’s 1 denial of his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. We affirm for the reas ons stated by the district court. See 8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

______________________________
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he panel un ani m ou sl y c on clud es ** th is c a s e is s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on w ith o u t o r a l ar g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). SR / R es ear ch NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON

UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J AV I E R GO ME Z - P E R E Z , AK A F r a n c is c o P e r e z G o m e z , A K A A n to n io H ernand ez , A K A Javi erG om ez P er ez , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e llan t. N o. 08- 10271 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c r - 0 1 3 0 7 - DG C ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt

f orthe D i s tr i c tof

A r i z ona D a vi d G . C a m pbe l l , D i s tr i c tJudge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d D e c e m be r15, 2009 ** B efo re: G O O D W IN , W A L L A C E , an dF IS H E R , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J a v ie rG o m e z - P e r e z ap p e a ls f r o m h is g u ilty - p le ac o n v ic tio n a n d5 1 - m o n th s e n te n c e f

o rille g a l r e - e n trya f

te rd e p o rta tio n , in v io la tio n o f 8 U .S .C . § 1 3 2 6 . 

# FI LED JAN 07 2 010 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALSS R/ Res ea r ch 08- 10271 2 P ur s ua ntt o A n de rs v . Ca lifo rn ia , 38 6 U . S . 73 8 (19 67 ), G om ez -P er ez ’ s c ou nselhas fi l ed a bri ef

st at i ng there ar e no g roun ds for r el i ef , al on g w i th a m ot i on t o w i thd raw as coun se l of re cord. W e have provi ded the appel l antw i th the op po rtun i ty t o fi l e a pro se s up pl em ent albri ef . G om ez -P er ez has f

i l ed a pro se supp l em ent albri ef . O uri nde pe nde ntr e vi e w of the r e c or d pur s uantt o P e n s o n v . O h io , 4 8 8 U . S. 7 5 , 8 0 - 8 1 ( 1 9 8 8 ) , d is c lo s e s n o a r g u ab le g r o u n d s f o rr e lie f o n d ir e c t ap p e a l. T he go vernm enthas f

i l ed a m ot i on t o d i sm i ss the appeal on the grou nd s that G om e z - P e r e z w a i ve d hi s r i ghtt o appe a l . W e gr anttha tm ot i on. A cco rd i n g l y, co u n sel ’ s m o t i o n t o w i th d raw i s G R A N TED , an dth e ap p e a l is D I SM I SSED .
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia Clerk's Office, Atlanta, April 20, 2017. I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia. Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto affixed the day and year last above written. , Clerk. 

# Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia
ATLANTA, April 20, 2017 The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order A17D0371. BRINK'S ATLANTA et al. v. SHIRLEY GLINTON. Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be hereby DENIED.
LC NUMBERS: 2017CV285529
Amendment to Agency Agreement



 Exhibit 10.3 
 AMENDMENT OF AGENCY AGREEMENT 
 DATED FEBRUARY 6, 2006 
 BETWEEN 
 OPTICAL SENSORS INCORPORATED AND FLEMING SECURITIES INC. 
 AND 
 EXTENSION OF TERMINATION DATE 

WHEREAS, Optical Sensors Inc. (“Optical Sensors”) entered into an Agency Agreement dated February 6, 2006 (the “Agency Agreement”) with
Fleming Securities, Inc. (“Fleming”) for the private placement of Optical Sensors Notes and Warrants to investors; and 
 WHEREAS, the terms set
forth in the second paragraph of Section 1(b) of the Agency Agreement are not as intended by the parties and incorrectly provide that Optical Sensors will sell to Fleming “warrants for the purchase of that number of shares of Common Stock
that is equal to 10 % of the number of shares of Common Stock that may be purchased pursuant to warrants sold in this bridge financing”; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend the terms of the Agency Agreement to set forth the original intention of the parties and provide that Optical Sensors will sell to Fleming “warrants for the purchase of that number of shares of
Common Stock that is equal to ten percent (10%) of the number of shares of Common Stock into which the Notes sold in this bridge financing pursuant to the Purchase Agreement (and the underlying shares of Series C Stock) are convertible upon
issuance of the Notes”; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desire to extend the offering period under the Agency Agreement from July 31, 2006 to
September 30, 2006. 
 NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein and other good and valuable consideration, it is agreed:

 1. That the second paragraph of the Agency Agreement is amended as follows: 
 “In addition, upon the final Closing Date, the Company agrees to sell to Fleming Securities for an aggregate price of $100, warrants (“Placement Agent’s Warrants”) for the purchase of that number
of shares of Common Stock that is equal to 10% of the number of shares of Common Stock into which the Notes sold in this bridge financing pursuant to the Purchase Agreement (and underlying shares of Series C Stock) are convertible upon issuance of
the Notes (“Placement Agent’s Shares”). The Placement Agent’s Warrants will be exercisable at a price of $2.70 per Placement Agent’s Share for a period of ten (10) years commencing as of the final Closing Date, such
price being adjustable as provided in the Placement Agent’s Warrants which shall be in the form attached hereto as Exhibit “B.” 







 2. That the termination date for the sale of Notes and Warrants under the Agreement for Placement of Securities dated
February 6, 2006 be extended from July 31, 2006 to and including September 30, 2006. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties to this Agreement have
caused this Agreement to be executed effective the 25th day of July, 2006. 
  

			
	OPTICAL SENSORS INCORPORATED
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Paulita M. LaPlante

		 	Paulita LaPlante, President
	
	FLEMING SECURITIES, INC.
		
	By:	 	 /s/ Hayden R. Fleming

		 	Hayden R. Fleming, President
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21
 
                         GUNDLE/SLT ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.
 
                              LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                              JURISDICTION OF      EFFECTIVE
                        ENTITY NAME                            INCORPORATION       OWNERSHIP
                        -----------                           ---------------      ---------
<S>                                                           <C>                  <C>
GSE Lining Technology, Inc. ................................  Delaware               100%
GSE Lining Technology GmbH..................................  Germany                100%
Gundle GmbH.................................................  Germany                100%
Geoplastics GmbH............................................  Germany                100%
GSE Lining Technology Pty. Ltd. ............................  Australia              100%
GSE Lining Technology Pte. Ltd. ............................  Singapore              100%
GSE Lining Technology Ltd. .................................  United Kingdom         100%
GSE U.K. Ltd. ..............................................  United Kingdom         100%
Gundle Environment Ltd. ....................................  United Kingdom         100%
SGS Geosystems Limited......................................  United Kingdom         100%
SGS Holdings Limited........................................  United Kingdom         100%
GSE Clay Lining Technology Co. .............................  South Dakota           100%
GSE International, Inc. ....................................  Delaware               100%
GSE Foreign Sales, Ltd. ....................................  Barbados               100%
Gundwater, Inc. ............................................  Nevada                 100%
</TABLE>