alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 91 (Wednesday, May 10, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 30047-30048]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11657]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-943; MM Docket No. 00-71; RM-9852]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Olpe, KS

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed by Michael D. Law, requesting the allotment of Channel 276A to 
Olpe, Kansas, as that community's first local aural transmission 
service. Coordinates used for this proposal are 38-12-39 NL and 96-10-
50 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 19, 2000, and reply 
comments on or before July 5, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner, as follows: Michael D. Law, 12462 Hallet, 
Olathe, KS 66062.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-71, adopted April 19, 
2000, and released April 28, 2000. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 
Twelfth Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., 
Washington, DC 20036, (202) 857-3800.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission

[[Page 30048]]

consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are prohibited in 
Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel 
allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing permissible ex 
parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-11657 Filed 5-9-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
13341

#### ALEXANDER v. ALEXANDER

(162 S. E., 437)

*477
      *Messrs. J. B. Atkinson, Bomar & Osborne*for appellant,

*Messrs. E. B. Gary, Jr., J. D. Kerr, Jr.,*and *R. W. Baldwin, Jr.,*for respondent,

*478February 1, 1932.

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

Mr. ChiEE Justice Bease.

It is our opinion that the well-prepared order of his Honor, County Judge Foster, in this case is correct. Accordingly, the exceptions thereto are overruled, and the order is affirmed.

Messrs. Justices Stabler, Carter and Bonham and Mr. F. C. Dennis, Circuit Judge, concur.

Mr. Justice Cothran did not participate on account of illness.
#### UNITED STATES v. INDIAN MOTOCYCLE CO.

[80 C. Cls. 594; 296 U. S. 600]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court October 14, 1935.
#### § 300.8 Opinions or rulings by the General Counsel.

The General Counsel is authorized to render opinions or rulings to the public on the application of the provisions of this part. When written request is made for such opinions and rulings, they shall be transmitted to DOT and shall be available to the public in the Documentary Services Division after any appeal to or review by the Secretary has been completed or after the time for review has expired. Identifying details shall normally be stricken from copies available to the public unless the public interest requires disclosure of such details.

[Docket No. 82, 50 FR 2380, Jan. 16, 1985. Redesignated and amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15935, Apr. 16, 2019]
# EUR-Lex - 31995D0388 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31995D0388

**95/388/EC: Commission Decision of 19 September 1995 determining the specimen certificate for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species **

*
Official Journal L 234 , 03/10/1995 P. 0030 - 0032 *

COMMISSION DECISION of 19 September 1995 determining the specimen certificate for intra-Community trade in semen, ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species (Text with EEA relevance) (95/388/EC)

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Directive 92/65/EEC of 13 July 1992 laying down animal health requirements governing trade in and imports into the Community of animals, semen, ova and embryos not subject to animal health requirements laid down in specific Community rules referred to in Annex A (I) to Directive 90/425/EEC (1), as last amended by the Act of Accession of Austria, Finland and Sweden, and in particular the fourth indent of Article 11 (2) and the third indent of Article 11 (3) thereof,

Whereas Directive 92/65/EEC lays down the animal health requirements governing trade in semen, ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species;

Whereas the specimen certificate applicable to such trade should be determined;

Whereas the measures provided for in this Decision are in accordance with the opinion of the Standing Veterinary Committee,

HAS ADOPTED THIS DECISION:

Article 1

1. A health certificate corresponding to the specimen shown in Annex I shall accompany semen of the ovine and caprine species during transport to another Member State.

2. A health certificate corresponding to the specimen shown in Annex II shall accompany ova and embryos of the ovine and caprine species during transport to another Member State.

Article 2

This Decision shall apply from 1 January 1996.

Article 3

This Decision is addressed to the Member States.

Done at Brussels, 19 September 1995.

For the Commission

Franz FISCHLER

Member of the Commission

(1) OJ No L 268, 14. 9. 1992, p. 54.

ANNEX I

>REFERENCE TO A FILM>

ANNEX II

>REFERENCE TO A FILM>
Editorial Note on Part 294
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 294 appear at 84 FR 15934, Apr. 16, 2019.

§ 294.20 Applying for registration. To apply for registration under this part, a Canadian charter air taxi operator shall file with the Department's Office of International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division, the following: ( a ) A currently effective certificate of insurance (see § 294.40); and
( b ) Three copies of OST Forms 4523 and 4505, which may be obtained from the Department's Office of International Aviation, U.S. Air Carrier Licensing/Special Authorities Division. All the information required by OST Form 4505 shall be filled in, and it shall be certified by a responsible officer of the applicant Canadian charter air taxi operator.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control number 3024-0051) [ER-1257, 46 FR 52591, Oct. 27, 1981; 46 FR 62054, Dec. 22, 1981, as amended by ER-1363, 48 FR 46265, Oct. 12, 1983; Doc. No. 47939, 57 FR 40102, Sept. 2, 1992; 60 FR 43526, Aug. 22, 1995; 71 FR 49347, Aug. 23, 2006]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6785

JOHN KENNEDY ROBINSON,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. T.S. Ellis, III, District Judge.

(CA-97-688-AM)

Submitted: January 21, 1999 Decided: February 5, 1999

Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Clyde Clark, LAND, CLARK, CARROLL & MENDELSON, P.C., Alexandria, Virginia; Wm. Lee Robinson, Macon, Georgia, for Appellant.

Linwood Theodore Wells, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Richmond,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

John Kennedy Robinson seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254

(West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on

the reasoning of the district court. See Robinson v. Angelone, No.

CA-97-688-AM (E.D. Va. May 7, 1998). 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
§ 31.27 Strength. ( a ) The structure must be able to support limit loads without detrimental effect.
( b ) The structure must be substantiated by test to be able to withstand the ultimate loads for at least three seconds without failure. For the envelope, a test of a representative part is acceptable, if the part tested is large enough to include critical seams, joints, and load attachment points and members.
( c ) An ultimate free-fall drop test must be made of the basket, trapeze, or other place provided for occupants. The test must be made at design maximum weight on a horizontal surface, with the basket, trapeze, or other means provided for carrying occupants, striking the surface at angles of 0, 15, and 30 degrees. The weight may be distributed to simulate actual conditions. There must be no distortion or failure that is likely to cause serious injury to the occupants. A drop test height of 36 inches, or a drop test height that produces, upon impact, a velocity equal to the maximum vertical velocity determined in accordance with § 31.19, whichever is higher, must be used.
[Doc. No. 1437, 29 FR 8258, July 1, 1964, as amended by Amdt. 31-4, 45 FR 60179, Sept. 11, 1980]
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATIONS



I, Charles A. French, certify that:



1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of River Holding Corp.;



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. The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are 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 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, 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 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 (the registrants fourth fiscal 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; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer(s) 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 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 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: March 16, 2004 |  | /s/ Charles A. French  
|                     |  | Charles A. French      
|                     |  | Chief Executive Officer
#### NATIONAL BOX CO. v. UNITED STATES

[81 C. Cls. 164; 296 U. S. 636]

Petition for writ of certiorari *denied*by the Supreme Court November 11, 1935.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2126

___________________________

Barry Boone

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Carolyn W. Colvin, Acting Commissioner, Social Security Administration

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Arkansas - Jonesboro

____________

 Submitted: February 3, 2016

Filed: February 8, 2016 

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, ARNOLD, and SMITH, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Barry Boone appeals the district court’s1

 order affirming the Commissioner’s

denial of disability insurance benefits after a hearing before an administrative law

judge (ALJ). For reversal, Boone argues that the ALJ’s decision is not supported by

substantial evidence on the record as a whole, and in particular, that (1) the ALJ’s

finding that Boone could perform his past relevant work (PRW) as an exterminator

and quality-assurance worker is not supported by substantial evidence, and the error

was not harmless; and (2) the ALJ erred in discounting the opinion of Boone’s treating

physician, Samuel Burchfield, M.D.

Following careful de novo review, we conclude that substantial evidence in the

record as a whole supports the denial of Boone’s application. See Halverson v.

Astrue, 600 F.3d 922, 927-31 (8th Cir. 2010) (standard of review). We agree with

Boone that substantial evidence does not support a finding that he could perform his

PRW as an exterminator and quality-assurance worker, but Boone cannot show that

the ALJ would have decided his case differently if the error had not occurred: the

ALJ continued the sequential evaluation to find, based on the testimony of a

vocational expert, that there were other jobs that a person with Boone’s residual

functional capacity and environmental restrictions could perform. See Byes v. Astrue,

687 F.3d 913, 917-18 (8th Cir. 2012). Further, we conclude that the ALJ properly

discounted Dr. Burchfield’s opinion based on its inconsistency with the physician’s

medical-examination findings and with other medical evidence in the record as a

whole. See Perkins v. Astrue, 648 F.3d 892, 897-98 (8th Cir. 2011).

The judgment of the district court is affirmed. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

1

The Honorable Jerome T. Kearney, United States Magistrate Judge for the

Eastern District of Arkansas, to whom the case was referred for final disposition by

consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

-2-
###### Editorial Note on Part 399

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to part 399 appear at 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019.

#### § 399.73 Definition of small business for Regulatory Flexibility Act.

For the purposes of the Department's implementation of chapter 6 of title 5, United States Code (Regulatory Flexibility Act), a direct air carrier or foreign air carrier is a small business if it provides air transportation only with small aircraft as defined in § 298.2 of this chapter (up to 60 seats/18,000 pound payload capacity).

[Doc. No. OST-96-1429, 61 FR 29019, June 7, 1996, as amended by Doc. No. DOT-OST-2014-0140, 84 FR 15947, Apr. 16, 2019]
§ 39.5 When does FAA issue airworthiness directives? FAA issues an airworthiness directive addressing a product when we find that: ( a ) An unsafe condition exists in the product; and
( b ) The condition is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________

No. 95-30488

USDC No. 94-CV-1766

__________________

LYMAN THOMPSON,

 Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

MIKE GILLIAM, Warden,

 Respondent-Appellee.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

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

August 14, 1995

Before DUHÉ, EMILIO M. GARZA and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Lyman Thompson has filed a request for a certificate of

probable cause (CPC). IT IS ORDERED that his motion be GRANTED. 

Thompson has failed to demonstrate that he has exhausted his

state remedies, see Carter v. Estelle, 677 F.2d 427, 443 (5th

Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1056 (1983), and has failed to

demonstrate that he should be excused from exhausting his claims. 

See Deters v. Collins, 985 F.2d 789, 795 & n.16 (5th Cir. 1993). 

Therefore, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the portion of the judgment

dismissing without prejudice his habeas claims for failure to

exhaust is AFFIRMED. 
No. 95-30488

-2-

The Supreme Court has held that in order to recover damages

for harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a

conviction or sentence invalid, the plaintiff must prove that the

conviction or sentence was reversed on appeal, expunged by

executive order, declared invalid by a state tribunal authorized

to make such determinations, or called into question by a federal

court's issuance of a writ of habeas corpus. Heck v. Humphrey,

114 S. Ct. 2364, 2372 (1994). Prior to Heck, this court required

litigants to litigate § 1983 claims that were inextricably

intertwined with habeas claims in habeas proceedings before

pursuing § 1983 relief. Serio v. Members of Louisiana State Bd.

of Pardons, 821 F.2d 1112, 1119 (5th Cir. 1987). 

The district court did not address Thompson's denial-ofaccess-to-the-courts claim, and it is unclear from the current

record whether Heck precludes suit at this time. Therefore, that

portion of the judgment is VACATED and the case REMANDED. On

remand the district court should consider the claim in light of

Heck.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the motion for appointment of

counsel is DENIED. See Schwander v. Blackburn, 750 F.2d 494, 502

(5th Cir. 1985). All remaining motions are DENIED.
#### Legg *vs.*Dorsheim, Judson & Case.

Albany,

May, 1839.

In a joint action against the maker and endorsers of a promissory note, the venue will not be changed on the application of the endorsers alone; the maker must join in the application.

Motion to change the venue. The action was *joint*against Dorsheim, as *maker,*and Judson and Case, as *endorsers*of a promissory note. The *endorsers,*(who alone pleaded) moved without the *maker*joining, for a • rule to change the venue from Cayuga to Erie.

*D. Tillinghast,*for the motion.

*F. G. Jewett,*contra.

*By the Court,*

Cowen, J.

The statute by authorizing a joint action against the several parties to bills and notes, subjected them to all the legal consequences of such joinder, except in so far as their several former rights are expressly saved. One of these legal consequences is, that part among a number of defendants can not move to change the venue. The statute has expressly saved the several rights of the parties as to responsibility, the competency of witnesses, the legal effect of the judgment, the right of putting off the trial, and the right of one to move for judgment as in case of non-suit without the other, &c.; but the right of severance on motion to change the venue, is not mentioned. The defendants therefore must *all*join as in other cases.

Motion denied.
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Edward F. Mehm, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Capital Crossing Preferred Corporation (the “registrant”);  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused suchdisclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensurethat material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;  b) [Not applicable]  c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness ofthe disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and  d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscalquarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report)that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.        Date: November 8, 2006 By:  /s/ Edward F. Mehm   Edward F. Mehm   *Treasurer (Principal Financial Officer)*  
27
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

                       Consent of Independent Accountants


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement of
GeoCities on Form S-8 (File No. 333-61117) of our report dated January 27, 1999,
except for Note 8 as to which the date is February 11, 1999 and the restatement
portion of Note 2 as to which the date is February 19, 1999, on our audits of
the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule of
GeoCities as of December 31, 1998 and 1997, and for each of the three years in
the period ended December 31, 1998, which report is included in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Woodland Hills, California
March 26, 1999