alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### § 50.2 How will reestablishment of this formal government-to-government relationship occur?

A Native Hawaiian government seeking to reestablish a formal government-to-government relationship with the United States under this part must submit to the Secretary a request as described in § 50.10. Reestablishment of a formal government-to-government relationship will occur if the Secretary grants the request as described in §§ 50.40 through 50.43.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFiber Optic Experience with the Smart Actuation System on the F-18 Systems Research AircraftHigh bandwidth, immunity to electromagnetic interference, and potential weight savings have led to the development of fiber optic technology for future aerospace vehicle systems. This technology has been incorporated in a new smart actuator as the primary communication interface. The use of fiber optics simplified system integration and significantly reduced wire count. Flight test results showed that fiber optics could be used in aircraft systems and identified critical areas of development of fly-by-light technology. This paper documents the fiber optic experience gained as a result of this program, and identifies general design considerations that could be used in a variety of specific applications of fiber optic technology. Environmental sensitivities of fiber optic system components that significantly contribute to optical power variation are discussed. Although a calibration procedure successfully minimized the effect of fiber optic sensitivities, more standardized calibration methods are needed to ensure system operation and reliability in future aerospace vehicle systems.Document ID19970035035Acquisition SourceArmstrong Flight Research CenterDocument TypeReprint (Version printed in journal)AuthorsZavala, Eddie*(NASA Dryden Flight Research Center Edwards, CA United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 6, 2013Publication DateOctober 1, 1997Subject CategoryAircraft Design, Testing And PerformanceReport/Patent NumberH-2205NAS 1.15:206223NASA/TM-97-206223Meeting InformationMeeting: Digital Avionics SystemsLocation: Irvine, CACountry: United StatesStart Date: October 26, 1997End Date: October 30, 1997Accession Number97N30251Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 529-31-14-00-36Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19970035035.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
- Skip to Primary Navigation
    - Skip to Main Content
    - Skip to Footer

        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   
        -   

      -  Water & Power          - Dams
        - Powerplants
        - Projects
        - Agrimet/Hydromet
        - Water Operations 
      -  Resources & Research          - Programs
        - Technical Service Center
        - Research & Development
        - Reclamation Manual
        - Environmental Resources/Reports
        - Library 
      -  About Us          - Mission
        - Fact Sheet
        - Commissioner
        - Addresses/Contacts
        - Organizational Chart
        - Leadership Bios
        - Employment
        - Contact 
      -  Recreation & Public Use          - Find Recreation
        - Recreation.gov
        - Public Use 
      -  News & Multimedia          - News Releases
        - News Stories
        - Speeches
        - Congressional Testimony
        - Fact Sheets
        - Photos
        - Multimedia
        - Social Media 

# California-Great Basin

Welcome to the Bureau of Reclamation California-Great Basin

            - Reclamation
            - California-Great Basin
            - CVP
            - Ratesetting
            - CVP Annual Ratebooks & Schedules
            - CVP Ratebooks - Irrigation, 2019

Region 10              - Region 10 Home
              - About Us
              - Area Offices
              - Central Valley Project (CVP)                  - About the CVP
                - Water Info Links
                - Ratesetting
                - Projects/Activities
                - Consultation on the Coordinated Long-Term Operation                         of the CVP and SWP
                - Laws/Regs/Links
                - Financial Information 
                - Long-Term Water Transfer Program
                - Central Valley Project Improvement Act (CVPIA) 
              - Programs & Activities
              - Projects & Facilities
              - Doing Business with Reclamation
              - Public Affairs
              - Employment
              - Recreation
              - Site Index
              - Contact Us

## CVP Ratebooks - Irrigation, 2019

*Note:  Documents in Portable Document Format (PDF) require Adobe Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher to view, download Adobe Acrobat Reader*
*Last Updated: 7/15/20*

## More Information about the Bureau of Reclamation

## Stay in Touch

            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   
            -   

            - Contact Us
            - Site Index
            - Accessibility
            - Disclaimer
            - DOI
            - FOIA
            - No Fear Act
            - Notices
            - Privacy Policy
            - Quality of Information
            - Recreation.gov
            - USA.gov
E-2

**Exhibit 32**

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Advanced Lumitech, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report’), I, Patrick Planche, President, Chief Executive Officer, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

| (1)    | The Report   fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the   Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and                               |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                    |
| (2)    | The   information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material   respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company. |

| /s/ Patrick   Planche               |   |
|------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                          |   |
| Patrick   Planche, President,            |   |
| Chief   Executive Officer, Treasurer and |   |
| Chief   Financial Officer                |   |
| August 21,   2006                        |   |

----
Exhibit 31.1


                                  CERTIFICATION


I, Ramesh C. Trivedi, certify that:

1.       I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Integrated
         Surgical Systems, Inc.;

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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.       I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls
         and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
         15d-15(e)) for the registrant and I have:

          a)   Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
               disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
               supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
               registrant, is made known to us by others within those entities,
               particularly during the period in which this report is being
               prepared;

          b)   Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
               controls and procedures and presented in this report our
               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 registrant's internal
               control over financial reporting that occurred during the
               registrant's most recent fiscal quarter that has materially
               affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
               registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.       I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal
         control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the
         registrant's board of directors:

          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 registrant'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 registrant's
               internal control over financial reporting.


/s/ Ramesh C. Trivedi
------------------------------------------

Ramesh C. Trivedi, Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2007
**Exhibit 32.2**








Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
      Section 1350,


as
      adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION
      906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of M45 Mining Resources
      Inc.
      (the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Gilles
      Ouellette, Secretary/Treasurer and Principal Financial Officer of the Company,
      certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1)
            
            The
                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
                of
                the
              Securities
                Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
            
            The
                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects,
              the
                financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




Date: August 20, 2007
            
            
            /s/
              Gilles
              OuelletteGilles
              OuelletteSecretary/Treasurer
              Principal
                Financial Officer
No. 1187

Claimant awarded $896.38.)

#### Ayer & Lord Tie Company, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Respondent.

*Opinion filed May 12, 1927.*

Franchise *tax-*— when *claimant entitled to refund.*The decision of the court in the case of *McIntosh Carbonic Co.*v. *State, supra,*governs this claim.

Gillespie & Gillespie, for claimant.

Oscar E. Carlstrom, Attorney General ; David J. Kadyk, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

Mr. Justice Leech

delivered the opinion of the court:

This is a claim to recover $896.38, being a sum heretofore paid as franchise tax to the State of Illinois in excess of the amount legally due. Claimant in its declaration sets out that it is an Illinois corporation, having its principal office in the State of Illinois at 80 East Jackson boulevard, in the city of Chicago; that in 1926 it had an authorized capital stock of $2,450,000 of par value shares, and in that year the total value of its property located everywhere and the total amount of its business transacted everywhere' amounted to $8,102,907.00; that the total value of its property located in the State of Illinois and the total amount of its business transacted in the State of Illinois in that year amounted to $2,173,692.00; the taxable proportion of its authorized capital stock being .26826 or $657,237.00 taxable authorized capital stock for the *392year 1926; that the franchise tax lawfully due the State of Illinois on such proportion of its authorized capital stock for the year 1926 was $328.62, but that it paid a franchise tax in that year of $1,225.00, which sum was in excess of the amount lawfully due the State as franchise taxes to the amount of $896.38; that the error in computation resulted through no fault of petitioner, but from a misinterpretation of the statements made by petitioner in its annual report to the Secretary of State for the year 1926.

The Attorney General of the State of Illinois has filed herein a written consent to the award of $896.38, being refund of franchise fee paid in excess of the legal fee due through an error in computation for the year beginning July 1, 1926, and we accordingly award claimant the sum of $896.38.
```

[106th Congress Public Law 262]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ262.106]

[[Page 114 STAT. 736]]

Public Law 106-262
106th Congress

                                 An Act

 
 To name the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Rome, 
  New York, as the ``Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs 
      Outpatient Clinic''. <<NOTE: Aug. 18, 2000 -  [H.R. 1982]>> 

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

SECTION. 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in Rome, New 
York, shall after the date of the enactment of this Act be known and 
designated as the ``Donald J. Mitchell Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference to such outpatient clinic in a law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States shall be 
considered to be a reference to the Donald J. Mitchell Department of 
Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic.

    Approved August 18, 2000.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--H.R. 1982:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 146 (2000):
            July 25, considered and passed House.
            July 27, considered and passed Senate.

                                  <all>
```
### §7231. Failure to obtain license for collection of foreign items

Any person required by section 7001 (relating to collection of certain foreign items) to obtain a license who knowingly undertakes to collect the payments described in section 7001 without having obtained a license therefor, or without complying with regulations prescribed under section 7001, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $5,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.

(Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 857.)
§ 3211.10 What are the processing and filing fees for leases? ( a ) Processing or filing fees are required for the following actions: ( 1 ) Nomination of lands for competitive leasing;
( 2 ) Competitive lease application;
( 3 ) Noncompetitive lease application (including application for direct use leases);
( 4 ) Assignment and transfer of record title or operating right;
( 5 ) Name change, corporate merger, or transfer to heir/devisee;
( 6 ) Lease consolidation;
( 7 ) Lease reinstatement;
( 8 ) Site license application; and
( 9 ) Assignment or transfer of site license.
( b ) The amounts of these fees can be found in § 3000.12 of this chapter.
[72 FR 24400, May 2, 2007, as amended at 72 FR 50887, Sept. 5, 2007]
§ 4.1366 Burdens of proof. ( a ) In a proceeding to review a decision on an application for a new permit— ( 1 ) If the permit applicant is seeking review, OSMRE shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case as to failure to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act or the regulations or as to the appropriateness of the permit terms and conditions, and the permit applicant shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to entitlement to the permit or as to the inappropriateness of the permit terms and conditions.
( 2 ) If any other person is seeking review, that person shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion that the permit application fails in some manner to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act or the regulations, or that OSMRE should have imposed certain terms and conditions that were not imposed.
( b ) In a proceeding to review a permit revision ordered by OSMRE, OSMRE shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case that the permit should be revised and the permittee shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion.
( c ) In a proceeding to review the approval or disapproval of an application for a permit renewal, those parties opposing renewal shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion that the renewal application should be disapproved.
( d ) In a proceeding to review the approval or disapproval of an application for a permit revision or an application for the transfer, assignment, or sale of rights granted under a permit— ( 1 ) If the applicant is seeking review, OSMRE shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case as to failure to comply with applicable requirements of the Act or the regulations, and the applicant requesting review shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to entitlement to approval of the application; and
( 2 ) If any other person is seeking review, that person shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion that the application fails in some manner to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act and the regulations.
( e ) In a proceeding to review a decision on an application for a coal exploration permit— ( 1 ) If the coal exploration permit applicant is seeking review, OSMRE shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case as to failure to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act or the regulations, and the permit applicant shall have the ultimate burden of persuasion as to entitlement to the approval.
( 2 ) If any other person is seeking review, that person shall have the burden of going forward to establish a prima facie case and the ultimate burden of persuasion that the application fails in some manner to comply with the applicable requirements of the Act or the regulations.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 3, 2017

N o. 04

- 17

- 00368

- CR

Preston Dewayne VANNOY

, Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the County Court At Law No 2, Guadalupe County, Texas

Trial Court No. CCL

- 15

- 0780

Honorable Brenda Chapman, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

The Appellant ’s Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief has this date been received

and filed in the above styled and numbered cause. Extension of time to file the Appellant’s brief

is this date GRANTED. Time is extende d to December 4, 2017.



### PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO:

_______________ ___________________

KEITH E. HOTTLE

CLERK OF COURT

cc: Christopher M. Eaton

Assistant County Attorney

211 W. Court Street, 3rd Floor

Seguin, TX 78155 Susan Lee Schoon

Schoon Law Firm, P.C.

200 N. Seguin Avenue

New Braunfels, TX 78130

- 4456
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-6629

SALEEM RAFEEQ PORTER,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 versus

JEFFREY W. FRAZIER, CJM, Superintendent; TED

HULL, Major, CJM, Assistant Superintendent,

 Defendants - Appellees,

 and

NORTHERN NECK REGIONAL JAIL,

 Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Gerald Bruce Lee, District

Judge. (CA-03-249-AM)

Submitted: July 29, 2004 Decided: August 5, 2004

Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Saleem Porter, Appellant Pro Se. Robert A. Dybing, THOMPSON &

MCMULLAN, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
- 2 -

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 3 -

PER CURIAM:

Saleem Rafeeq Porter appeals the district court’s order

denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Porter v.

Frazier, No. CA-03-249-AM (E.D. Va. filed Mar. 15, 2004 & entered

Mar. 16, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
### §1352. Alternative tax on qualifying shipping activities

In the case of an electing corporation, the tax imposed by section 11 shall be the amount equal to the sum of—

(1) the tax imposed by section 11 determined after the application of this subchapter, and

(2) a tax equal to—

(A) the highest rate of tax specified in section 11, multiplied by

(B) the notional shipping income for the taxable year.

(Added Pub. L. 108–357, title II, §248(a), Oct. 22, 2004, 118 Stat. 1450.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section applicable to taxable years beginning after Oct. 22, 2004, see section 248(c) of Pub. L. 108–357, set out as an Effective Date of 2004 Amendments note under section 56 of this title.
#### Frank S. Otway, Respondent, v. Snare & Triest Company, Appellant.

Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals denied. Present— Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Rich and Putnam, JJ.