alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 83 (Friday, April 28, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 24982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-10601]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to The National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Digital Imaging Group, Inc.

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 2, 1999, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. et. seq. (``the Act''), Digital Imaging Group, Inc. 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, AXS 
Technologies SA, Lousanne, SWITZERLAND; Alchemedia, San Francisco, CA; 
Museum Informatics Project, Berkeley, CA; and Pegasus Imaging Corp., 
Tampa, FL have been added as parties to this venture. Also, Sound 
Vision, Inc., Framingham, MA; and Micrografx, Inc., Richardson, TX have 
been dropped as parties to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the joint venture. Membership in this joint venture remains 
open, and Digital Imaging Group, Inc. intends to file additional 
written notification disclosing all changes in membership.
    On September 25, 1997, Digital Imaging Group, Inc. 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 November 10, 1997 (62 FR 60530).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on August 19, 
1999. A notice has not yet been published in the Federal Register.

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-10601 Filed 4-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
§ 1221.114 Approval of new or change proposals. ( a ) Except for NASA Astronaut Mission Crew Badges/Patches, any proposal to change or modify the emblematic devices set forth in this subpart or to introduce a new emblematic device other than as prescribed in this subpart requires the written approval of the NASA Administrator with prior approval and recommendation of the NASA Associate Administrator for Communications.
( b ) In addition to the written approval of the NASA Administrator, any proposal for a new or for a modification to the design of the NASA Insignia may also be submitted to the Commission of Fine Arts for its advice as to the merit of the design. If approved in writing by the NASA Administrator and advice received from the Commission of Fine Arts, the NASA Insignia and the use of such NASA Insignia must be prescribed in this subpart and published in the Federal Register.
( c ) Proposals to establish, change, or modify NASA Astronaut Crew Mission Badges/Patches requires the written approval of the Director, Flight Crew Operations, Johnson Space Center; Center Director, Johnson Space Center; and the Associate Administrator for Space Flight. Decals/patches/badges may be produced as soon as the approval cycle is completed.
[58 FR 58944, Nov. 5, 1993, as amended at 85 FR 71831, Nov. 12, 2020]
§ 650.75 Inventory, examination, and reports to stockholders. ( a ) As soon as practicable after taking possession of the Corporation, the conservator shall take an inventory of the assets and liabilities of the Corporation as of the date possession was taken. One copy of the inventory shall be filed with the Farm Credit Administration.
( b ) The conservatorship shall be examined by the Farm Credit Administration in accordance with section 8.11 of the Act.
( c ) The conservatorship shall prepare and file financial reports and other documents in accordance with the requirements of § 655.1 and part 621 of this chapter. The conservator of the Corporation shall provide the certification required in § 621.14 of this chapter.
[62 FR 43636, Aug. 15, 1997. Redesignated and amended at 70 FR 40650, 40651, July 14, 2005]
#### § 1214.607 Media and public inquiries.

Information on mementos flown on a particular mission will be routinely released by the Associate Administrator of the Office of Communications to the media and to the public upon their request, but only after they have been approved for flight.
### Geology of part of the Townsend Valley, Broadwater and Jefferson Counties, Montana

By: Val L. FreemanEdward Thompson RuppelMontis Ruhl Klepper

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/b1042N

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (6844 pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 42**                            (8790 pdf)                        
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
Exhibit 32.2 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-Q of Alliance Financial
Corporation (the Company) for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, J.
Daniel Mohr, 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, that to the best of my knowledge: (1)       The
  Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
  Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2)       The
  information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
  the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. Dated: August 6, 2007 /s/ J.
  Daniel MohrName: J.
  Daniel MohrTitle:
  Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer -32-
#### GRAHAME AND CLOSE *v.*DOUGLAS.

Security for costs — attorney—substitution—continuance.

Where an attorney inadvertently enters security for costs contrary to rule, he will be allowed to substitute other security.

A continuance will not be granted for want of secuiity for costs, unless the omission has prevented the preparation of the case.

The plaintiff being a non-resident, Worthington, his attorney, had gone security for costs, contrary to the rule of the court.

Woodside, for the defendant,

treating the security as a nullity, asked a continuance of the case, because security was not given.

*Worthington*

stated that he had inadvertently entered the security, not being aware of the rule of court, and offered to substitute other security for costs, which the court allowed.

*Woodside*

still pressed his motion to continue, because he was not prepared, and was not hound to prepare without security was given.

The Court.

If you will state that preparation had been omitted because security was not in, we will listen to the motion.

- This was not done and the continuance was refused.

Judgment was then entered for the plaintiff by agreement of counsel.
Exhibit 32.2

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                                (18 U.S.C. 1350)

     In connection with the Report of HST Global, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Wesley D. Tate, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350), that to my knowledge:

     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 14, 2008

                                        \s\ Wesley D. Tate
                                        ------------------
                                        Wesley D. Tate
                                        Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
Exhibit 31.1

                                 CERTIFICATION
                                 -------------

I, Ron Howell, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of HST Global, Inc. (the
"Company") for the period ending June 30, 2008;

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 Company 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
Company and 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 Company, including its
     consolidated subsidiaries, 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 Company'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 Company's internal
     control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most
     recent fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of
     an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
     materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting.

5.     I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal control
over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the audit committee of
the Company'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 Company'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 Company's internal
     control over financial reporting.

                                   Date: August 14, 2008

                                   \s\ Ron Howell
                                   --------------
                                   Ron Howell
                                   Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3792 Introduced in House (IH)]

108th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3792

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize a ``child only'' 
annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan of the Armed Forces when there 
is a surviving spouse in the case of a member of the Armed Forces dying 
 on active duty during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and 
                      ending on November 23, 2003.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           February 10, 2004

Mr. Whitfield introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to authorize a ``child only'' 
annuity under the Survivor Benefit Plan of the Armed Forces when there 
is a surviving spouse in the case of a member of the Armed Forces dying 
 on active duty during the period beginning on September 11, 2001, and 
                      ending on November 23, 2003.

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

SECTION 1. EQUITY FOR SURVIVING SPOUSES OF MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES 
              DYING ON ACTIVE DUTY DURING THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON 
              SEPTEMBER 11, 2001, AND ENDING ON NOVEMBER 23, 2003.

    Subparagraph (B) of section 1448(d)(2) of title 10, United States 
Code, as added by section 645(a)(1) of the National Defense 
Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 (Public Law 108-136; 117 Stat. 
1518), is amended by striking ``the date of the enactment of the 
National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004'' and inserting 
``September 11, 2001,''.
                                 <all>
```
§ 121.403 Training program: Curriculum. ( a ) Each certificate holder must prepare and keep current a written training program curriculum for each type of airplane with respect to dispatchers and each crewmember required for that type airplane. The curriculum must include ground and flight training required by this subpart.
( b ) Each training program curriculum must include: ( 1 ) A list of principal ground training subjects, including emergency training subjects, that are provided.
( 2 ) A list of all the training equipment approved under § 121.408 as well as other training aids that the certificate holder will use.
( 3 ) Detailed descriptions or pictorial displays of the approved normal, abnormal, and emergency maneuvers, procedures and functions that will be performed during each flight training phase or flight check, indicating those maneuvers, procedures and functions that are to be performed during the inflight portions of flight training and flight checks.
( 4 ) A list of FSTDs approved under § 121.407, including approvals for particular maneuvers, procedures, or functions.
( 5 ) The programmed hours of training that will be applied to each phase of training.
( 6 ) A copy of each statement issued by the Administrator under § 121.405(d) for reduction of programmed hours of training.
[Doc. No. 9509, 35 FR 90, Jan. 3, 1970, as amended by Amdt. 121-366, 78 FR 67836, Nov. 12, 2013; Amdt. 121-382, 85 FR 10921, Feb. 25, 2020; Docket No. FAA-2019-0360; Amdt. No. 121-392, 89 FR 51425, June 18, 2024]
##### 



EXHIBIT 11.1
 Premier Exhibitions, Inc. and Subsidiaries
Computation of Net Income Per Share
 Three Months Ended August 31,
    
    Six Months Ended August 31,2005
    
    2006
    
    2005
    
    2006Numerator:Net income
    
    $
    1,486,000
    
    
    $
    1,329,000
    
    
    $
    1,924,000
    
    
    $
    2,393,000Denominator:Basic weighted-average shares outstanding
    
    
    23,074,939
    
    
    
    27,372,761
    
    
    
    22,927,113
    
    
    
    26,857,721Effect of dilutive stock options and warrants
    
    
    2,240,692
    
    
    
    3,782,572
    
    
    
    2,240,692
    
    
    
    3,494,870Diluted weighted-average shares outstanding
    
    
    25,315,631
    
    
    
    31,155,333
    
    
    
    25,167,805
    
    
    
    30,352,591Net income per share:Basic
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    0.05
    
    
    $
    0.08
    
    
    $
    0.09Diluted
    
    $
    0.06
    
    
    $
    0.04
    
    
    $
    0.08
    
    
    $
    0.08-
Attachment 002

This page has been omitted as Confidential Business Information
#### § 121.15 Carriage of narcotic drugs, marihuana, and depressant or stimulant drugs or substances.

If a certificate holder operating under this part permits any aircraft owned or leased by that holder to be engaged in any operation that the certificate holder knows to be in violation of § 91.19(a) of this chapter, that operation is a basis for suspending or revoking the certificate.

[Doc. No. 28154, 60 FR 65926, Dec. 20, 1995]
## IN THE COURT O F CRIMINA L A PPEA LS OF TEXA S NO. WR-83,578-01

EX P ARTE DWAYNE EDWARD N ASH, App licant

ON AP P LICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORP US CAUSE NO. 39596A IN THE 33 DISTRICT COURT R D F ROM BURNET COUNTY

Per curiam . O R D E R Pursuant to the provisions of Ar t i cl e 1 1

. 07 of the Texas Code of Criminal Procedur e, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for a writ of habea s corpus. Ex parte Y oung , 418 S.W .2d 824, 826 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant was convic t ed o f murder and

s e nte n c e d to seventy-five y ear s’ imprisonment. The Third Court of Appea ls aff irmed his convictio n . Nash v. State , No. 03-12-00456- CR (Tex. App.–Austi n Aug . 21, 2013). Applicant contends that his tria l c ounsel rende red ineffe ctive assistance beca use he did not i n v es t iga te and prese nt witnesses who could have testified reg arding the dece dent’s ag g ressive behavior towards Applicant and his g irlfriend (the dece dent’s mother). He also alleg es that counsel should have pre sented a

n expert witness reg arding fig ht or flight and that he did not prese nt a full mitigation ca se at punishment.2

Applicant has alleg ed fac ts that, if true, might entitle him to relief

. Strickland v. W

ashington , 466 U.S. 668 (1984); Ex parte Patterson , 993 S.W .2d 114, 115 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). In these circ umstances, additional fac ts are neede d. As we held in Ex parte Rodriguez , 334 S.W .2d 294, 294 (Tex. Crim. App. 1960), the trial court is the appropr iate forum for finding s of fac t. The trial court shall order trial counsel to respond to Applicant’s claim o f i n ef fec tive assistance of counsel. The trial court may

use any means set out in T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 11.07, § 3(d)

. I f the trial c ourt elec ts to hold a hearing, it shall determine whe ther Applica nt is indi g ent. I f Applicant is indige nt and wi s h es to be repr esente d by counsel, the trial court shall appoint an attorney to repre sent Applicant at the hearing. T E X . C O D E C R I M . P R O C . art. 26.04. The trial court shall make fi n d i ng s of fac t and conclusions of law as to whether the perf ormanc e of Appl i ca n t ’s trial counsel was defic ient and, if so, whether counsel’s defic ient perf ormanc e prejudice d Applicant. The trial court shall also make any other finding s of fac t and conclusions of law that it deems rele vant and appropr iate to the dispositi on of Applicant’s claim for habea s corpus re lief. This application will be held in abeyance until the trial court has resolved the fac t issues. The issues shall be resolved within 90 day s of this order

. A sup p l em en t al t ranscript containing all aff idavits and int err og atories or the t ransc ription of t he court repor ter’s notes from any hearing or deposition, alongwith the trial court’ s supplemental finding s of fa ct and c onclusions of law, shall be for war ded to this Court within 120 day s of t he date of t his order. Any extensions of ti me shall be obtained f

rom this Court.

Filed: August 26, 2015 Do not publish
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7800

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

ROBERTO SPALDING,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM-3)

Submitted: May 2, 2007 Decided: May 16, 2007

Before MICHAEL, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roberto Spalding, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Roberto Spalding seeks to appeal the district court’s

order construing his Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(c) motion as a successive

28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion, and dismissing it on that basis.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Spalding has

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate

of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED