alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30641]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11983]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice 00-049]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of prospective patent license.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that CyberLearning Technologies, 
Inc., of Plymouth Meeting, PA, has applied for an exclusive license to 
practice the inventions described and claimed in U.S. Patent Number 
5,377,100, entitled ``A METHOD OF ENCOURAGING ATTENTION BY CORRELATING 
VIDEO GAME DIFFICULTY WITH ATTENTION LEVEL,'' and NASA Case No. LAR 
15817-1, entitled ``A METHOD OF ENCOURAGING PHYSIOLOGICAL SELF-
REGULATION THROUGH MODULATION OF AN OPERATOR'S CONTROL INPUT TO A VIDEO 
GAME OR TRAINING SIMULATOR,'' both of which are assigned to the United 
States of America as represented by the Administrator of the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to the 
prospective grant of a license should be sent to Langley Research 
Center.

DATES: Responses to this notice must be received by July 11, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Helen M. Galus, Patent Attorney, 
Langley Research Center, Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681-2199; 
telephone 757-864-3227; facsimile 757-864-9190.

    Dated: May 1, 2000.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-11983 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-P
§ 1611.8 Agency review of request for correction or amendment to record. ( a ) When the Commission receives a request for amendment or correction under § 1611.7(a), the appropriate Commission official shall acknowledge that request in writing within 10 working days of receipt. He or she shall promptly either: ( 1 ) Determine to grant all or any portion of a request for correction or amendment; and: ( i ) Advise the individual of that determination;
( ii ) Make the requested correction or amendment; and
( iii ) Inform any person or agency outside the Commission to whom the record has been disclosed, and where an accounting of that disclosure is maintained in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(c), of the occurrence and substance of the correction or amendments, or;
( 2 ) Inform the requester of the refusal to amend the record in accordance with the request; the reason for the refusal; and the procedures whereby the requester can appeal the refusal to the Legal Counsel of the Commission.
( b ) If the Commission official informs the requester of the determination within the 10-day deadline, a separate acknowledgement is not required.
( c ) In conducting the review of a request for correction or amendment, the Commission official shall be guided by the requirements of 5 U.S.C. 552a(e).
( d ) In the event that the Commission receives a notice of correction or amendment from another agency that pertains to records maintained by the Commission, the Commission shall make the appropriate correction or amendment to its records and comply with paragraph (a)(1)(iii) of this section.
( e ) Requests for amendment or correction of records maintained in the government-wide systems of records listed in § 1611.5(c) shall be governed by the appropriate agency's regulations cited in that paragraph. Requests for amendment or correction of records maintained by other agencies in system EEOC/GOVT-1 shall be governed by the Commission's regulations in this part.
[42 FR 7949, Feb. 8, 1977, as amended at 56 FR 29581, June 28, 1991]
#### RALLS v. McMILLAN.

No. 28042.

March 19, 1940.

Rehearing Denied April 9, 1940.

*100 P. 2d 1004.*

Paul W. Updergraff, of Norman, for plaintiff in error.

Smith & Buckles, of Oklahoma City, for defendant in error.

DAVISON, J.

This action in replevin originated in a justice of the peace court of Cleveland county. It was instituted on Frebruary 13, 1936, by M. B. McMillan, as plaintiff, who sought to recover from Rawleigh Ralls lightweight linotype magazine and other printing equipment, or in lieu thereof the value in the sum of $87. The plaintiff prevailed in the justice court and was again successful when the cause was tried de novo in the county court of Cleveland county on the 23rd day of March, 1937.

The defendant, appearing herein as plaintiff in error, presents his argument on appeal under the single proposition that:

> “The court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff did not file a replevin bond in compliance with law at the beginning of the said replevin action.”

In presenting his argument the defendant relied upon Thomas v. Lang, 179 Okla. 134, 64 P. 2d 874, wherein we held that by virtue of section 934, O. S. 1931 (39 O. S. A. 423) an action in replevin cannot be maintained in the justice court until a replevin bond is filed.

*105The record discloses that an instrument purporting to be a replevin bond and in proper form was filed with and approved by the justice of the peace. The bond was signed by W. L. Overholser, Jr.

By virtue of section 4209, O. S. 1931 (5 O. S. A. 11), forbidding licensed attorneys of this state from signing bonds in civil or criminal actions *in which they may be employed*as counselors, and upon authority of Schaffer v. Troutwein, 36 Okla. 653, 129 P. 696, holding a bond signed by such an attorney void, the defendant takes the position that the replevin bond herein filed was a nullity.

He asserts ■ that W. L. Overholser, Jr., is an attorney and was employed as counselor in connection with this case. He does not, however, call our attention to any portion of the record which supports this assertion and our own search fails to reveal any allusion to the employment of Overholser by either of the parties or his appearance in the case as counsel.

In this as in other cases we must necessarily decide the issue upon consideration of the record before us. “The law must and does assume a standard of right conduct.” State ex rel. Baldwin v. Ingram et al., 164 Okla. 179, 23 P. 2d 161. We cannot assume, in the absence of a record so indicating, that Mr. Overholser, who signed the bond, was employed as counsel in the case.

The decision of the trial court is affirmed.

BAYLESS, C. J., WELCH, V. C. J., and RILEY and OSBORN, JJ., coricur.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*John R. Foote et al., Appellants, and Town of Hempstead, Respondent.

(Argued November 16, 1936;

decided November 18, 1936.)

*John J. Bennett, Jr., Attorney-General (G. Frank Dougherty*of counsel), for motion.

*William H. Bisnoff, Milton Pincus, Louis W. McKernan, Edward R. Hurley, David S. Hill, Jr., Benjamin Kaplan*and *Lillian M. Kooperstein,*opposed.

Motion denied, with leave to renew on argument of case.
## **Exhibit 31.3**

##  

## Kentucky UtilitiesCompany

##  

I,Victor A. Staffieri, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief ExecutiveOfficer, certify that:

 

1.I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Kentucky UtilitiesCompany;

 

2.Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statementof a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make thestatements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements weremade, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this annual report;

 

3.Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this annual report, fairly present in all materialrespects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrantas of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined inExchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant andhave:

 

a)designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure thatmaterial information relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period coveredby this report based on such evaluation; and

 

c)disclosed in this annual report any change in the registrant’s internal controlover financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recentfiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annualreport) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materiallyaffect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;

 

5.The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b)any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date:  March 29, 2006

 
| /s/ Victor A. Staffieri |   |
|-------------------------|--------|

VictorA. Staffieri

Chairmanof the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer

 

156

----
Exhibit 21

                         Subsidiaries of the Registrant

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                     Percentage of Outstanding
                                                     Limited Partnership Units
                                                      Owned By Baron Capital
Name of Limited Partnership                              Properties, L.P.             State of Formation
---------------------------                              ----------------             ------------------
<S>                                                            <C>                         <C>
Baron Strategic Investment Fund, Ltd.                           93.75%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund II, Ltd.                       100.00%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund IV, Ltd.                       100.00%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund V, Ltd.                         97.50%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund VI, Ltd.                        96.65%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund VIII, Ltd.                     100.00%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund IX, Ltd.                        98.50%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Investment Fund X, Ltd.                         97.62%                      Florida
Baron Strategic Vulture Fund I, Ltd.                           100.00%                      Florida
Brevard Mortgage Program, Ltd.                                 100.00%                      Florida
Central Florida Income Appreciation Fund, Ltd.                  98.57%                      Florida
Crystal Court Apartments II, Ltd.                              100.00%                      Florida
Florida Capital Income Fund, Ltd.                               95.04%                      Florida
Florida Capital Income Fund II, Ltd.                            94.50%                      Florida
Florida Capital Income Fund III, Ltd.                           92.75%                      Florida
Florida Income Advantage Fund I, Ltd.                           98.40%                      Florida
Florida Income Appreciation Fund I, Ltd.                       100.00%                      Florida
Florida Income Growth Fund V, Ltd.                              96.09%                      Florida
Florida Opportunity Income Partners, Ltd.                      100.00%                      Florida
Heatherwood Kissimmee, Ltd.                                    100.00%                      Florida
Lamplight Court of Bellefontaine Apartments, Ltd.              100.00%                      Florida
Midwest Income Growth Fund VI, Ltd.                             93.33%                     Michigan
Realty Opportunity Income Fund VIII, Ltd.                       95.76%                      Florida
Riverwalk Enterprises, Ltd.                                    100.00%                      Florida
</TABLE>


                                       53
#### Cooley *et al.,*Resp’ts, *v.*Cummings, App’lt.

*(New York Superior Court,*

*General Term,*

*Filed March 5, 1889.)*

1. Costs—Cektificate of tbial justice as to title to seal estate.

A certificate of the trial justice, that the title to real estate came in question on the trial, is conclusive upon the taxing officer, and he, therefore, commiis no error in entering judgment so as to include costs to the plaintiff.

2. Same—Remedy of defendant is by motion.

Where no order granting the motion for a certificate has been finally made or entered, the remecly of defendant, if aggrieved, is by motion to set the certificate aside, and not by appeal.

*173
      *J. H. Whitelegge,*for app’lt; *Chauncey Shaffer*and *Jacob Fromme,*for resp’ts.

Dugro, J.—

This is an appeal from so much of a judgment as awards costs in the action to the plaintiffs, and from a certificate granted by the trial justice, certifying that the title to real estate came in question on the trial. The certificate was conclusive upon the taxing officer *(Lillis*v. *O'Conner,*8 Hun, 280), and he, therefore, committed no error in entering judgment so as to include costs. I do not believe that the granting of a certificate is such an immediate order as is when specified in the notice of appeal brought up for review by an appeal from a final judgment, and, therefore, I think there can be no available exception to the granting of a certificate. To my mind, therefore, no ground for the reversal or modification of the judgment has .been presented. If the certificate was improperly granted, it- may be set aside on a motion made for that purpose. *Barney*v. *Keith,*6 Wend., 555.

It seems that no order granting the motion for a certificate was formally made or entered; and so, as the matter stands, the defendant’s remedy, if aggrieved, is by motion and not by appeal.

The appeal must be dismissed, with costs.

Sedgwick, J., concurs.
Exhibit 31.1  Section 302 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  I, R. Thomas Kidd, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Greens Worldwide Incorporated.  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:  a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and  c) presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;  5. I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, 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 in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls.  6. I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.  Date: August 18, 2006  /s/ R. Thomas Kidd ______________________________________ R. Thomas Kidd President and Chief Executive Officer
#### § 1471.1000 Respondent.

*Respondent* means a person against whom an agency has initiated a debarment or suspension action.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 93 (Friday, May 12, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 30599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-11974]



[[Page 30599]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[DA-00-1012, MM Docket No. 00-76, RM-9809]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Urbana, IL

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by the 
University of Illinois Board of Trustees, licensee of noncommercial 
educational station WILL-TV, NTSC Channel *12, Urbana, Illinois, 
requesting the substitution of DTV Channel *9 for DTV Channel *33. DTV 
Channel *9 can be allotted to Urbana, Illinois, in compliance with the 
principle community coverage requirements of section 73.625(a) at 
coordinates 40-02-18 N and 88-40-10 W with a power of 30 (kW) and a 
height above average terrain (HAAT) 302 meters.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before July 3, 2000, and reply 
comments on or before July 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, 445 12th Street, SW, Room 
TW-A325, Washington, DC 20554. In addition to filing comments with the 
FCC, interested parties should serve the petitioner, or its counsel or 
consultant, as follows: Wayne Coy, Jr., Cohn and Marks, Suite 300, 1920 
N Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036-1622 (Counsel for The University of 
Illinois Board of Trustees).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 00-76, adopted May 9, 
2000, and released May 10, 2000. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. 
The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, International Transcription Services, 
Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20036.
    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 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.
Barbara A. Kreisman,
Chief, Video Services Division, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-11974 Filed 5-11-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
AAM-11-332-E June 29, 2011

Exemption No. 10302 Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2011-0581

Mr. Dan Steiner

President Aircraft Charter Services, Inc.

17229 CR 42 Goshen, IN 46526

Dear Mr. Steiner:

This letter is to inform you that we have granted your request for exemption. It transmits our decision, explains its basis, and gives you the conditions and limitations of the exemption, including the date it ends.

The Basis for Our Decision

By letter dated May 27, 2011, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on behalf of Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. (ACS), Inc for an exemption from § 91.147 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations ( 14 CFR). However, although you request an exemption from § 91.147, the FAA finds that you instead need an exemption from part 120 to the extent necessary to allow ACS to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation.

The FAA has determined that good cause exists for not publishing a summary of the petition

in the Federal Register because the requested exemption would not set a precedent, and any delay in acting on this petition would be detrimental to ACS.

The FAA has issued a grant of exemption in circumstances similar in all material respects to those presented in your petition. In Grant of Exemption No. 9703 (copy enclosed), the FAA found that Solid Edge’s § 91.147 air tour operations were closely connected to its part 135 operations. The FAA also found that combining the petitioner’s two testing programs into one would be in the public interest and would maintain an equivalent level of safety to that2

provided by the current regulations. Thus, the FAA concluded it was unnecessary to burden the petitioner by requiring it to conduct two separate testing programs.

Having reviewed your reasons for requesting an exemption, I find that—

 they are similar in all material respects to relief previously requested in the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703;

 the reasons stated by the FAA for granting the enclosed Grant of Exemption No. 9703 also apply to the situation you present; and

 a grant of exemption is in the public interest.

Our Decision

Under the authority contained in 49 U.S.C. 40113 and 44701, which the FAA Administrator has delegated to me, I hereby grant Aircraft Charter Services, Inc. an exemption from 14 CFR part 120 to the extent necessary to allow ACS to cover its safety-sensitive employees under one testing program while operating under separate parts of the regulation, subject to

the conditions and limitations described below.

Conditions and Limitations

1. Employees of Aircraft Charter Services are subject to the drug and alcohol regulations at all times while conducting operations under part 135 or part 91.

2. The drug and alcohol program must be implemented under the auspices of the Aircraft Charter Services part 135 operation, not under part 91.

This exemption terminates on July 31, 2013, unless sooner superseded or rescinded.

Sincerely,

/s/
James R. Fraser, M.D. Deputy Federal Air Surgeon

Enclosure