alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Served: October 2 , 2012

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Small Community Air Service Development Program

Docket DOT-OST-2012-0069

NOTICE

By Order 2012-8-14 (August 14, 2012), the U.S. Department of Transportation awarded 33 

grants under the Small Community Air Service Development Program (Small Community 

Program) benefitting 34 communities in 25 states/territories. Casper, Wyoming was among the 

communities receiving these financial grants to implement air service initiatives.

The Small Community Program statute directs the Department to designate an airport in one 

community awarded a grant under this program as an Air Service Development Zone (ASDZ), 

and to work with the community on means to attract business to the area surrounding the airport, 

to develop land-use options for the area, and to provide data, working with the Department of 

Commerce and other agencies. See Title 49 U.S.C. § 41743(h). The designation does not

provide any additional financial assistance. 

The Department recognizes the efforts that Casper has taken to improve business interest in the 

airport. These efforts include initiatives to expand Foreign Trade Zone 157, installation of fiber 

optic loop and digital subscriber line (DSL) technologies, improvements to the industrial road 

entrance, and updates to the Industrial Park development plan. Casper, Wyoming, was the only 

community seeking the designation this year, requesting that the Department designate the 

Casper/Natrona County International Airport as an ASDZ.
- 2 -

Accordingly, we hereby designate the Casper/Natrona County International Airport, in Casper, 

Wyoming, as an ASDZ. 

By:

SUSAN L. KURLAND

Assistant Secretary for Aviation

and International Affairs

Dated: October 2, 2012

(SEAL)

An electronic version of this document will be available at:

http://www.regulations.gov
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARCH
31, 1999 CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                             247
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      594
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   800
<PP&E>                                           2,514
<DEPRECIATION>                                   2,224
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   2,059
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,575
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        43,930
<OTHER-SE>                                    (43,470)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     2,059
<SALES>                                            645
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,046
<CGS>                                            1,115
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    5,158
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (60)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,241)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (4,241)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,241)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.16)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.16)


</TABLE>
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3471 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3471

    To authorize the Corps of Engineers to enter into a cooperative 
 agreement with the State of New York to fund one or more projects for 
        habitat restoration in the Hudson River Basin, New York.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 16, 1996

  Mrs. Kelly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
             Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To authorize the Corps of Engineers to enter into a cooperative 
 agreement with the State of New York to fund one or more projects for 
        habitat restoration in the Hudson River Basin, New York.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Hudson River Habitat Restoration Act 
of 1996''.

SEC. 2. HUDSON RIVER, NEW YORK.

    (a) Habitat Restoration Project.--The Secretary of the Army may 
enter into a cooperative agreement with the State of New York to 
develop and expeditiously implement, in advance of the completion of 
the full feasibility study, one or more of the individual restoration 
projects at sites identified in the reconnaissance report entitled 
``Hudson River Habitat Restoration; Hudson River Basin, New York'', 
dated February 1995, for any of the following purposes:
            (1) Providing a pilot project to assess and improve habitat 
        value and environmental outputs of recommended projects.
            (2) Providing a demonstration project to evaluate various 
        restoration techniques for effectiveness and cost.
            (3) Filling an important local habitat need within a 
        specific portion of the study area.
            (4) Taking advantage of ongoing or planned actions by other 
        agencies, local municipalities, or environmental groups that 
        would increase the effectiveness, or decrease the overall cost, 
        of implementing one of the recommended restoration project 
        sites.
    (b) Maximum Federal Cost.--The maximum amount of Federal funds that 
may be expended under this section at any site identified in the 
February 1995 reconnaissance report is $2,700,000.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this section $23,000,000.
                                 <all>
```
#### James WASHINGTON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, State of Florida, Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services, Respondent.

No. 74-750.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 18, 1974.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and E. Earl Taylor, Jr., Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for respondent.

*281PER CURIAM.

Petitioner filed a petition for writ of ha-beas corpus, whereupon the court entered its order commanding the respondent to show cause, if any, why the petitioner should not be granted full appellate review under the provisions of Baggett v. Wainwright, Fla., 229 So.2d 239.

Upon consideration of respondent’s response to the order to show cause, the petitioner’s petition is hereby

Denied.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and BOARDMAN, JJ., concur.
•&er ote£o^n=K> -T& i\te CcM,tz.f OP ^"fW/O/vu AfpoT^s OF

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINALAPPEALS APR 13 2015 AbelAcosta,Clerk•£yf&<z of ttx&e? 5 i/0 Trie coui^r 

### ^ S OF (UlfU/AJAC ^ptAtS e>TEPfVW>l£ facX)W(f5 f OF TT^AcS cav&?uojs> a>os-coo^ c^- 

## IOdlo Comeaf Stepfwuer(W)zAi£rt>, ^ppficMJr ajod iMoura TtV\s C^o/oouar^O IP Mit.l^cutelU. hFri^o^oir j/o *K£>p5ou£=er t^> \md\auo ix\cc THnT FbuuovU/AJO \-te^^/0- 

### A*) ^He^i5)pieces of- imr lau) e^Fom^me^T "Wp^r ^Oo

-^iUr -p^t^e. fb^-CT (2espor2T with Ttte: to^met) OF 77-fe

### iioPo^M/^^r that uutrtr aim^edu/ aaaiut/o Tt> Appc^or 

### C)TD peoQuceT DOtaryatrMrs u THAT" Moy OP Titer e^f~^ ^irutf^tf^ -g>\Acu /vs Titeuu^^uo^/0 /MfeJ^w^oT/vo/^ 

### tbOOt^&ri^G jODividi/i/^S i/uHz>n/\ ~nter s>FWf &rued9 o/U jitfC,0(MPS IN TVfc> 6Ac5tT./•• \ or tHc (tow^r or tttiw/aj*<u ^c^crx^- a s-&- ooa^a^jcA 

### Mr -rvter UktJe? j\Auyray iinir /*J C?P*TbZ?\siLUf ,T^ .7^5% j2.p*u£*^ reviewed -Hoe<^e. rwrno/o^ //O cSut^TioO a-^O 

### IF /uerr^utcT^o to do eo B>y tHi^ Ow^t uoma-f lA^^ev-ev, X vocrA.LVQ At&o ulcer t^ lAJl^oem ya^ tUat ^rvhe? davier of c^hvlz/uag y^ppo^e* m-ad au2£^o\j AA^vQer t-fS> 'fcUU/uk "torftogcT Titer T72-<AU dovu^x—

|2e7C^ivB^o TVkp^xr aaohdaj^ a^o ~raot& , Appu.cv\c?o7- )Jz/T^ iVts^cT /W0T7 0OS jNTUn^ PfptrAU. A*>& co^-rrwr 

## 8^O^i or Apac. ^r'MuxM*^L4*
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

The Board of Directors 

Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement No. 333-152997 and 333-108108 on Form S-8 of our report datedFebruary 28, 2011, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Palmetto Bancshares, Inc. and Subsidiary as of December 31, 2010 and the related consolidated statements of income (loss), changes in shareholders’ equity and comprehensiveincome (loss) and cash flows for the year then ended, which report appears in the December 31, 2010 Annual Report on Form 10-K. 

 

/s/ Elliott Davis LLC 

 

Greenville, South Carolina 

February 28, 2011
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10-14-00215-CV

IN RE MANUEL LARA

Original Proceeding

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The petition for writ of mandamus is denied, and the emergency motion for 

temporary relief is therefore dismissed as moot.

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed July 29, 2014

[OT06]
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 19

- 40318 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JOSE VICTOR HERNANDEZ

- CUELLAR , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 4:16

- CR

- 111

- 1

Before BENAVIDES, COSTA , and HO, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Jose Victor Hernandez

- Cuellar, who is serving a 247

- month sentence for sexual exploitation of children, appeals the district court’s order granting in part and denying in part his pro se motion to unseal parts of the record. Hernandez

- Cuellar’s direct app eal of his judgment of conviction was pending at the time he filed his motion to unseal. As a threshold issue, we are obligated

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. 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 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED February 10, 2020 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 19-40318 Document: 00515303317 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/10/2020No. 19

- 40318

2 to examine the basis of our jurisdiction. See United States v. De Los Reyes , 842 F.2d 755, 757 (5th Cir. 1988)

.

“‘ [ A ] n appe al divests the district court of its jurisdiction over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal.’” United States v. Bolton , 908 F.3d 75, 101 (5th Cir. 2018) (quoting United States v. Pena , 713 F. App’x 271, 272 (5th Cir. 2017) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) ) , cert. denied , 140 S. Ct. 47 (2019)

. “Further, an appeal of a judgment determining the entire action divests the district court of jurisdiction, while that appeal is pending, over any further matters for t hat action, ‘except in aid of the appeal or to correct clerical errors.’” Pena , 713 F. App’x at 272

- 73 (quoting Nicol v. Gulf Fleet Supply Vessels, Inc. , 743 F.2d 298, 299 (5th Cir. 1984)). Hernandez

- Cuellar ’s appeal of the district court’s final judgment as a whole was pending at the time he filed his motion to unseal

. Thus, the district court retained only the authority to aid the appeal or correct any clerical errors. His pro se motion sought to unseal documents that he believed would support a potent ial 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion ; it did not seek to unseal documents relevant to the pending appeal

. Therefore , the district court’s order granting the motion in part and denying it in part did not aid the appeal or correct clerical errors , and the district c ourt lacked jurisdiction to consider the motion while the direct appeal was pending. Accordingly , because the district court lacked jurisdiction, we lack jurisdiction to consider the merits of Hernandez

- Cuellar’s appeal of the district court’s order. Se e United States v. Key , 205 F.3d 773, 774 (5th Cir. 2000). The appeal is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. Case: 19-40318 Document: 00515303317 Page: 2 Date Filed: 02/10/2020
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of SpectraScience, Inc.
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2012 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, James Dorst, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. §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.



| | /s/ James Dorst                                                          
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | James Dorst
        Chief Financial Officer
        Date: August 14, 2012
#### § 433.35 Equipment—Federal financial participation.

Claims for Federal financial participation in the cost of equipment under the Medicaid Program are determined in accordance with subpart G of 45 CFR part 95. Requirements concerning the management and disposition of equipment under the Medicaid Program are also prescribed in subpart G of 45 CFR part 95.

[47 FR 41564, Sept. 21, 1982]
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF INTERIM CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER  PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, D. Scott Mercer, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Adaptec, Inc. for the
fiscal year ended March 31, 2005 (the "Form 10-K"), that the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements
of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

|                    |  |     |  |                                                                   |  | 
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/D. SCOTT MERCERD. Scott Mercer
Interim Chief Executive Officer |  | 

I,
Marshall L. Mohr, certify to the best of my knowledge based upon a review of the Form 10-K, that the Form 10-K fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of Adaptec, Inc. for the periods covered by the Form 10-K.

|                    |  |     |  |                                                             |  | 
|------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------- |  | 
|Date: June 14, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/MARSHALL L. MOHRMarshall L. Mohr
Chief Financial Officer |  | 

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Adaptec, Inc. and will be retained by Adaptec, Inc. and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---



QuickLinks
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 02-30787

Conference Calendar

 

FRANK D. STEWART,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

O.K. ANDREWS; JOHN ONELLION; LUNDY & DAVIS L.L.P.;

RICHARD P. IEYOUB; RICHARD L. STALDER; JOHNNY CREED,

Defendants-Appellees.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

USDC No. 02-CV-558

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

February 19, 2003

Before WIENER, EMILIO M. GARZA, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Frank D. Stewart appeals the denial of his petition for writ

of mandamus. In that petition, Stewart sought free photocopies

of documents he allegedly needed in order to file a 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2254 petition. 

28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) is not an independent grant of

jurisdiction; therefore, the district court did not err in its

determination that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the
No. 02-30787

-2-

mandamus petition. See Texas v. Real Parties In Interest,

259 F.3d 387, 392 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 534 U.S. 1115

(2002). Insofar as Stewart’s mandamus petition could be

construed as a raising a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 access-to-the-courts

claim, the issue whether Stewart, as an indigent prisoner, is

constitutionally entitled to free copies is moot because Stewart

is no longer incarcerated. See Rocky v. King, 900 F.2d 864, 867

(5th Cir. 1990) (an action is moot where the controversy is no

longer live). 

Stewart’s appeal is without arguable merit and is therefore

dismissed as frivolous. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2; Howard v. King,

707 F.2d 215, 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983). 

APPEAL DISMISSED.
###### Editorial Note on Part 457

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 457 appear at 75 FR 48852, Aug. 11, 2010 and 77 FR 17213, 2013.

#### § 457.1285 Program integrity safeguards.

The State must comply with the program integrity safeguards in accordance with the terms of subpart H of part 438 of this chapter, except that the terms of §§ 438.66(e), 438.362(c), 438.602(g)(6) and (10), 438.604(a)(2), 438.608(d)(4) and references to LTSS of this chapter do not apply and that references to subpart K under part 438 should be read to refer to parity requirements at § 457.496.

[89 FR 41285, May 10, 2024]
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel., Juniser JONES v. CLERK of COURT, PARISH of ORLEANS CRIMINAL DISTRICT COURT.

No. 80-KH-2541.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 26, 1980.

In re Juniser Jones, applying for writ of mandamus. Parish of Orleans. No. 259-839.

Granted. Relator is entitled to Boykin transcript.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Small Business Administration

Notice is hereby given that C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., 4520 Main Street, Suite 1600, Kansas City, Missouri 64111-7700, a Federal Licensee under the Small Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended (“the Act”), in connection with the financing of a small concern, has sought an exemption under section 312 of the Act and section 107.730, Financings Which Constitute Conflicts of Interest of the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) rules and regulations (13 CFR 107.730). C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., proposes to provide financing to Findett LLC, P.O. Box 0960, St. Charles, MO 63302-0960. The financing is contemplated for the acquisition of a new production facility and to provide working capital.

The financing is brought within the purview of Sec. 107.730(a)(1) of the Regulations because C3 Capital Partners, L.P., an Associate of C3 Capital Partners II, L.P., currently owns greater than 10 percent of Findett LLC, and therefore, Findett LLC, is considered an Associate of C3 Capital Partners II, L.P. as defined in Sec. 105.50 of the regulations.

Notice is hereby given that any interested person may submit written comments on the transaction, within 15 days, to the Acting Associate Administrator for Investment, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 Third Street, SW., Washington, DC 20416.

Dated: September 11, 2009.

Harry E. Haskins,

Acting Associate Administrator for Investment.

[FR Doc. E9-22363 Filed 9-16-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE M
PUBLIC LAW 114–166—JUNE 13, 2016 130 STAT. 419 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 136: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Mar. 1, considered and passed House. 

May 26, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–166 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 1103 USPS 

Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, California, as the ‘‘Camp Pendleton Medal 

of Honor Post Office’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. CAMP PENDLETON MEDAL OF HONOR POST OFFICE. 

(a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States Postal 

Service located at 1103 USPS Building 1103 in Camp Pendleton, 

California, shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Camp Pendleton 

Medal of Honor Post Office’’. 

(b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, regulation, 

document, paper, or other record of the United States to the facility 

referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference 

to the ‘‘Camp Pendleton Medal of Honor Post Office’’. 

Approved June 13, 2016. 

June 13, 2016 

[H.R. 136] 


dkrause on DSKHT7XVN1PROD with PUBLAWS
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Bill E. and Martie COX.

No. 65240.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 21, 1979.

In re Bill E. and Martie J. Cox, applying for supervisory writ. Parish of Caldwell. Nos. 15,627, 15,628, 15,629, 15,638, 15,639, and 15,640.

Denied.

*649TATE, J.,

concurs. Since defendants were not actually sentenced to fine or imprisonment in excess of six months, La. Const, of 1974, Art. I, Sec. 17, I am unwilling to hold that any constitutional right to a jury trial was abridged when defendant made no objection prior to verdict.