alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 24983-24984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10598]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Portland Cement Association (``PCA'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 25, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Portland Cement Association 
(``PCA'') has filed written notifications simultaneously with the 
Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in 
its membership status. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, RMC Pacific Materials Inc., Pleasanton, CA; and 
Southdown, Inc., Owen Sound, Ontario, Canada have been added as parties 
to this venture. Also, RMC Lonestar, Pleasanton, CA has been dropped as 
a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and Portland Cement Association 
(``PCA'') intends to file additional written notification disclosing 
all changes in membership.
    On January 7, 1985, Portland Cement Association (``PCA'') filed its 
original notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The 
Department of Justice published a notice in the Federal Register 
pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on February 5, 1985 (50 FR 5015).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on September 7, 
1999.

[[Page 24984]]

A Notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10598 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 20, 2014

No. 04-14-00086-CV

In the Interest of Y.G.B., A Child,

Appellant/s

From the 285th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2013-PA-00166

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 21, 2014, the trial court signed an order terminating Appellant’s rights to his

children Y.G.B. On February 4, 2014, Appellant filed a notice of accelerated appeal. See TEX.

R. APP. P. 26.1(b). The reporter’s record was due on February 14, 2014. See id. R. 35.1(b). 

On February 13, 2014, court reporter L. Kayleen Rivera filed a notification of late

reporter’s record. She indicated that she had not received a request for a reporter’s record in this 

appeal, and did not provide a date by which the record would be completed.

The reporter’s motion for extension of time to file the reporter’s record is GRANTED. 

The reporter’s record must be filed with this court by February 24, 2014. See id. R. 35.3(c) 

(limiting an extension in an accelerated appeal to ten days). 

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 20th day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.1

                            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 accompanying Annual Report of Back Yard Burgers, Inc.
(the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,
Lattimore M. Michael, Chief Executive 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 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/ Lattimore M. Michael
----------------------------
Lattimore M. Michael
Chief Executive Officer
March 30, 2006
§ 721.4 How may a credit union apply to engage in an activity that is not preapproved as within a credit union's incidental powers? ( a ) *Application contents.* To engage in an activity that may be within an FCU's incidental powers but that does not fall within a preapproved category listed in § 721.3, you may submit an application by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the NCUA Board. Your application must describe the activity, your explanation, consistent with the test provided in paragraph (c) of this section, of why this activity is within your incidental powers, your plan for implementing the proposed activity, any state licenses you must obtain to conduct the activity, and any other information necessary to describe the proposed activity adequately. Before you engage in the petition process you should seek an advisory opinion from NCUA's Office of General Counsel, as to whether a proposed activity fits into one of the authorized categories or is otherwise within your incidental powers without filing a petition to amend the regulation.
( b ) *Processing of application.* Your application must be filed with the Secretary of the NCUA Board. NCUA will review your application for completeness and will notify you whether additional information is required or whether the activity requested is permissible under one of the categories listed in § 721.3. If the activity falls within a category provided in § 721.3, NCUA will notify you that the activity is permissible and treat the application as withdrawn. If the activity does not fall within a category provided in § 721.3, NCUA staff will consider whether the proposed activity is legally permissible. Upon a recommendation by NCUA staff that the activity is within a credit union's incidental powers, the NCUA Board may amend § 721.3 and will request public comment on the establishment of a new category of activities within § 721.3. If the activity proposed in your application fails to meet the criteria established in paragraph (c) of this section, NCUA will notify you within a reasonable period of time.
( c ) *Decision on application.* In determining whether an activity is authorized as an appropriate exercise of a federal credit union's incidental powers, the Board will consider: ( 1 ) Whether the activity is convenient or useful in carrying out the mission or business of credit unions consistent with the Act;
( 2 ) Whether the activity is the functional equivalent or logical outgrowth of activities that are part of the mission or business of credit unions; and
( 3 ) Whether the activity involves risks similar in nature to those already assumed as part of the business of credit unions.
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

September 21, 2006

THOMAS K. KAHN

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

Nos. 05-16011 & 06-10776

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 05-00014-CV-4-RH

FRANK J. LAWRENCE, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

R. TERRY RIGSBY, 

in his official capacity as Chairman of 

the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 

ELEANOR MITCHELL HUNTER, 

in her official capacity as Executive 

Director of the Florida Board of Bar Examiners, 

HON. BARBARA J. PARIENTE, 

in her official capacity as Chief Justice

of the Florida Supreme Court, 

Defendants-Appellees. 

________________________

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Florida

_________________________

(September 21, 2006)
2

Before CARNES, WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Frank J. Lawrence, Jr. was denied admission to the Florida Bar for

failing to meet the fitness requirements. He filed a complaint in the district court,

raising federal constitutional and statutory challenges to the denial of his

admission. In an order dated October 7, 2005, the district court dismissed his

complaint based on the abstention principles set forth in Middlesex County Ethics

Committee v. Garden State Bar Association, 457 U.S. 423, 102 S. Ct. 2515, 73 L.

Ed. 2d 116 (1982) where the Supreme Court determined that federal action

challenging ongoing state bar disciplinary proceedings is barred by the doctrine of

Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 91 S. Ct. 746, 27 L. Ed. 2d 669 (1971). A later

filed motion for relief from judgment pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(6) was

denied in an order dated January 17, 2006 based on the principles set forth in the

Rooker-Feldman doctrine. In that order, the district court found that federal review

of the Florida Supreme Court’s decision denying Lawrence admission to the

Florida Bar would be improper because it would essentially constitute an appeal of

a state court decision in a federal district court, and that relief is more appropriate

on a petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Supreme Court. Rooker v.

Fidelity Trust Company, 263 U.S. 413, 44 S. Ct. 149, 68 L. Ed. 362 (1923);
3

District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 103 S. Ct. 1303,

75 L. Ed. 2d 206, (1982). Lawrence now challenges those rulings in this

consolidated appeal.

After careful consideration of the briefs and record, we find that the district

court’s orders constitute a proper application of the controlling law to the material

facts in this case. We therefore affirm the court’s judgments.

AFFIRMED.
§ 107.59 Refusal to submit to an alcohol test or to furnish test results. A refusal to submit to a test to indicate the percentage by weight of alcohol in the blood, when requested by a law enforcement officer in accordance with § 91.17(c) of this chapter, or a refusal to furnish or authorize the release of the test results requested by the Administrator in accordance with § 91.17(c) or (d) of this chapter, is grounds for: ( a ) Denial of an application for a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating for a period of up to 1 year after the date of that refusal; or
( b ) Suspension or revocation of a remote pilot certificate with a small UAS rating.
§ 411.400 Penalties. ( a ) Any person who makes an expenditure prohibited herein shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such expenditure.
( b ) Any person who fails to file or amend the disclosure form (see appendix B) to be filed or amended if required herein, shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure.
( c ) A filing or amended filing on or after the date on which an administrative action for the imposition of a civil penalty is commenced does not prevent the imposition of such civil penalty for a failure occurring before that date. An administrative action is commenced with respect to a failure when an investigating official determines in writing to commence an investigation of an allegation of such failure.
( d ) In determining whether to impose a civil penalty, and the amount of any such penalty, by reason of a violation by any person, the agency shall consider the nature, circumstances, extent, and gravity of the violation, the effect on the ability of such person to continue in business, any prior violations by such person, the degree of culpability of such person, the ability of the person to pay the penalty, and such other matters as may be appropriate.
( e ) First offenders under paragraph (a) or (b) of this section shall be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000, absent aggravating circumstances. Second and subsequent offenses by persons shall be subject to an appropriate civil penalty between $10,000 and $100,000, as determined by the agency head or his or her designee.
( f ) An imposition of a civil penalty under this section does not prevent the United States from seeking any other remedy that may apply to the same conduct that is the basis for the imposition of such civil penalty.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATE OF PERSON PERFORMING
FUNCTIONS OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER I, Thomas K. Emery, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Yager/Kuester
Public Fund Limited; 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 quarterly 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. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-1415(e) and 15d-1415(e)) for the registrant and we 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, 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 (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth quarter in the
case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal
control over financial reporting. 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based
on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the 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. Date:      November 12, 2004/s/ Thomas K. EmeryThomas K. Emery
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 33-69668) pertaining to the 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-95052) pertaining to the 1993 Long-Term Stock Incentive Plan of Electroglas, Inc., theRegistration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-35023) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan and Stock Options Granted Pursuant to Agreements made between Electroglas, Inc. and Certain Employees of Knights Technology, Inc., the Registration Statement(Form S-8 No. 333-28327) pertaining to the Knights Technology Inc. 1987 Stock Option Plan and Employment Agreements with each of Tom Sherby, Ken Huang, Mary Korn and Ankush Oberai, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-49303) pertaining toOptions Granted Pursuant to Agreements made between Electroglas, Inc. and Certain Employees of Techne Systems, Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-62139) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan and the 1998 Employee Stock PurchasePlan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-82209) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-38842) pertaining to the 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No.333-67708) pertaining to the Amended and Restated 1997 Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-67712) pertaining to the 2001 Non-Officer Employee Stock Incentive Plan, the Registration Statement (Form 333-96827) pertainingto the 2002 Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the Registration Statement (No. 333-103160) pertaining to the 2001 Non-Officer Employee Stock Incentive Plan, as amended, of our report dated January 27, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financialstatements and schedule of Electroglas, Inc., included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K), for the year ended December 31, 2002. 

 

/s/    ERNST & YOUNG LLP 

 

San Jose, California 

March 25, 2003
§ 111.235 Final separation from employment records. ( a ) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, each reporting entity must provide to the PRD the following records for each individual whom the reporting entity has employed as a pilot: ( 1 ) Records concerning separation from employment kept pursuant to § 91.1027(a)(3), § 121.683, § 125.401 or § 135.63(a)(4) of this chapter; and
( 2 ) Records pertaining to pilot performance kept concerning separation from employment for each pilot that it employs.
( b ) No person may report to the PRD any record regarding separation from employment that was subsequently overturned because the event prompting the action did not occur or the pilot was not at fault as determined by— ( 1 ) A documented agreement between the employer and the pilot; or
( 2 ) The official and final decision or order of any panel or individual given authority to review employment disputes, or by any court of law.
( c ) If a reporting entity receives notice that any separation from employment record reported to the PRD under paragraph (a) of this section was overturned in accordance with paragraph (b) of this section, that entity must correct the pilot's PRD record in accordance with § 111.250 within 10 days.
( d ) Each separation from employment action record that must be reported to the PRD in accordance with paragraph (a) of this section must include a statement of the purpose for the separation from employment action, including: ( 1 ) Whether the separation resulted from a termination as a result of pilot performance, including professional disqualification;
( 2 ) Whether the separation is based on another reason, including but not limited to physical (medical) disqualification, employer-initiated separation not related to pilot performance, or any resignation, including retirement;
( 3 ) The date of separation from employment; and
( 4 ) Whether there are additional documents available that are relevant to the record.
( e ) An operator, entity, or trustee complying with § 111.215(b) must report the records described in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this section upon request, unless the separation from employment action resulted from a termination. If the separation from employment record resulted from a termination, the operator, entity, or trustee must report the record in accordance with § 111.215(a).
( f ) ( 1 ) A reporting entity must provide any records of separation from employment actions no later than 30 days after the date of separation from employment is final, unless the reporting entity is an operator, entity, or trustee complying with § 111.215(b).
( 2 ) An operator, entity, or trustee complying with § 111.215(b) must report records described in this section or state that it does not have any applicable records within 14 days of receiving a request from a reviewing entity.
( g ) Each reporting entity must: ( 1 ) Retain documents relevant to the record reported under paragraph (a) of this section for five years, if available; and
( 2 ) Provide such documents upon request within 14 days to: ( i ) A reviewing entity; or
( ii ) The pilot that is the subject of the record.
----

**CERTIFICATION      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND**

**CHIEF      FINANCIAL OFFICER**

|   | 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 operation of the                Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| /s/                L. Paul Latham                            |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|
| L.                Paul Latham                                |
| President                and Chief Executive Officer         |
| of                Southwest Royalties, Inc., the             |
| Managing                General Partner of                   |
| Southwest                Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                                         |
| August                9, 2007                                |
|                                                         |
|                                                         |
| /s/                Mel G. Riggs                              |
| Mel                G. Riggs                                  |
| Vice                President and Chief Financial Officer of |
| Southwest                Royalties, Inc., the                |
| Managing                General Partner of                   |
| Southwest                Royalties, Inc. Income Fund VI      |
|                                                         |
| August                9, 2007                                |
#### § 107.53 Automatic Dependent Surveillance-Broadcast (ADS-B) Out prohibition.

Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator, no person may operate a small unmanned aircraft system under this part with ADS-B Out equipment in transmit mode.

[Amdt. No. 107-7, 86 FR 4513, Jan. 15, 2021]