alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 1690.301 Notification to EEOC during development of issuances. ( a ) Agencies shall notify the Commission whenever they intend to develop a significant issuance or an issuance affecting other agencies so that potential duplication, overlap, or inconsistency with the proposed issuances of other agencies can be identified before substantial agency time and resources have been expended. The requirement for consultation applies whether or not the agency plans to publish the issuance in the Federal Register for public comment.
( b ) Whenever an agency of the Federal government (initiating agency) develops a proposed issuance which will require consultation among the affected agencies, a responsible official of that agency or agency component shall initiate consultation by submitting an early draft of the appropriate documents, preferably after review at the first or second supervisory level, to the chair of the EEOC (ATTN: Associate Legal Counsel, Coordination and Guidance Services). The submission shall be made prior to the point that the issuance is deemed final and ready for publication and shall indicate the appropriate office or person responsible for development of the issuance.
( c ) EEOC recognizes that subsequent intra-agency clearance activities may change the policies outlined in the issuance and may add or delete items included in prior drafts. Therefore, during this period of policy development, an initiating agency shall not be bound by the contents of drafts which precede the final draft.
( d ) Except as provided in § 1690.307, in no instance shall there be formal submission to the EEOC or the affected agencies without prior consultation pursuant to section 1-304 of the Order.
( e ) Where an agency issuance is related to the internal management or administration of the agency, the issuance is exempt from the consultation process under the Order. The initiating agencies will make the determination of what must be submitted. When the agencies are in doubt, EEOC will determine the extent to which a particular issuance is covered by this exemption.
[45 FR 68361, Oct. 14, 1980, as amended at 47 FR 46276, Oct. 18, 1982]
#### § 1960.9 Supervisory responsibilities.

Employees who exercise supervisory functions shall, to the extent of their authority, furnish employees employment and a place of employment which are free from recognized hazards that are causing or are likely to cause death or serious physical harm. They shall also comply with the occupational safety and health standards applicable to their agency and with all rules, regulations, and orders issued by the head of the agency with respect to the agency occupational safety and health program.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Dwight WILLIAMS, Appellant.

No. 11036.

United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.

Argued May 30, 1967.

Decided June 2, 1967.

W. E. McElwee and John E. Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C. (McElwee & Hall, North Wilkesboro, N. C., on brief), for appellant.

Wm. Medford, U. S. Atty. (Joseph R. Cruciani, Asst. U. S. Atty., on brief), for appellee.

Before BOREMAN, BRYAN and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

The district court’s order revoking Dwight Williams’ probation is attacked principally on the ground thtat evidentiary support was lacking.

Revocation of probation lies within the discretion of the sentencing court and the only question before us is whether the district court abused its discretion. United States v. Ball, 358 F.2d 367 (4 Cir. 1966); United States v. Taylor, 321 F.2d 339 (4 Cir. 1963). *666Proof sufficient to support a criminal conviction is not required to support a judge’s discretionary order revoking probation. United States v. Ball, supra; Manning v. United States, 161 F.2d 827 (5 Cir. 1947). All that is required is that the evidence and facts be such as "to reasonably satisfy the judge that the conduct of the probationer has not been as good as required by the conditions of the probation.” Yates v. United States, 308 F.2d 737 (10 Cir. 1962).

Appellant’s counsel undertook to assign and argue orally before us other objections to the revocation order but we decline to consider them since they were not argued in the briefs and this court’s permission to argue them orally was not given. See Rule 10, section 8, Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

We find no abuse of discretion by the district court and its order will be

Affirmed.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00889-CV

V. C. and R. S., Appellants

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY 

NO. D-1-FM-16-006773, THE HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant R.S. filed his notice of appeal on December 27, 2017. The appellate 

record was complete January 24, 2018, making appellant’s brief due February 13, 2018. To date, 

appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

The rules of judicial administration accelerate the final disposition of appeals 

from suits for termination of parental rights. See Tex. R. Jud. Admin. 6.2(a) (providing 180 days 

for court’s final disposition). The accelerated schedule requires greater compliance with briefing 

deadlines. Therefore, we order counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than March 8, 2018. If 

the brief is not filed by that date, counsel may be required to show cause why he should not be 

held in contempt of court.

It is ordered on February 21, 2018.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Goodwin and Field
Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, December 04, 2020

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A21A0386. JUSTIN LATTIMORE v. THE STATE.

The appellant in this case failed to comply with the notice of docketing mailed by this 

Court and with Court of Appeals Rule 23 (a), regarding the filing of an enumeration of errors 

and brief within twenty days after the appeal was docketed. See also Court of Appeals Rule 13.

On October 28, 2020, this Court ordered the appellant to file an enumeration of errors 

and a brief no later than November 09, 2020. As of the date of this order, the appellant's 

enumeration of errors and brief still have not been filed. Accordingly, this appeal is deemed 

abandoned and is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Court of Appeals Rules 7, 23 (a).

Because procedural deficiencies have deprived the appellant of the right of appellate 

review, the appellant is hereby informed of the following in accordance with Rowland v. State, 

264 Ga. 872 (452 SE2d 756) (1995):

This Court has dismissed your appeal because an enumeration of errors and a 

brief have not been filed on your behalf as required. If this failure occurred while 

you were represented by legal counsel and was due to your appellate counsel's 

failure to perform the duties of appellate counsel, and if you still wish to appeal, 

you may file a motion in the trial court for permission to pursue an out-of-time 

appeal. If the trial court grants your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will 

have 30 days from the filing date of the order granting your motion to file in the 

trial court a notice of appeal from the judgment of conviction and sentence. If the 

trial court denies your motion for an out-of-time appeal, you will have 30 days 

from the filing date of the order denying your motion to file in the trial court a 

notice of appeal from that order.
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, December 04, 2020.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this order to the appellant as well as to 

the appellant's attorney of record, if any. The appellant's attorney is also directed to send a copy 

of this order to the appellant.
<PAGE>   1

<TABLE>
                                                                                    EXHIBIT 11

THE FIRST YEARS INC.
(FORMERLY KIDDIE PRODUCTS, INC.)

PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE AND FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<CAPTION>

                                                                     YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31
                                                                       1995          1994
<S>                                                                <C>            <C>
PRIMARY NET INCOME PER SHARE:

  Net income available for common shares and common stock
    equivalent shares                                              $3,724,493     $2,989,374
                                                                   ==========     ==========

  Primary net income per share                                     $     0.80     $     0.66
                                                                   ==========     ==========

SHARES USED IN COMPUTATION:

  Weighted average common shares outstanding                        4,507,058      4,497,244

  Common stock equivalents - options                                  156,433         53,450
                                                                   ----------     ----------

Total common stock and common stock equivalent dilutive shares      4,663,491      4,550,694
                                                                    =========      =========

FULLY DILUTED NET INCOME PER SHARE:

  Net income available for common shares and common stock
    equivalent shares                                              $3,724,493     $2,989,374
                                                                   ==========     ==========

  Fully diluted net income per share                               $     0.80     $     0.65
                                                                   ==========     ==========

SHARES USED IN COMPUTATION:

  Weighted average common shares outstanding                        4,507,058      4,497,244

  Common stock equivalents - options                                  166,595         71,726
                                                                   ----------     ----------
Total common stock and common stock equivalent dilutive shares      4,673,653      4,568,970
                                                                   ==========     ==========

</TABLE>


                                    IV-18
#### VAULK v STATE OF FLORIDA

Case No. 85-259 AC

Eleventh Judicial Circuit, Appellate Division, Dade County

November 17, 1986

APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

Arthur L. Vaulk for appellant.

Jim Smith, Attorney General, and Randi Klayman, Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Before SALMON, GREENBAUM, KORNBLUM, JJ.

OPINION OF THE COURT

MICHAEL H. SALMON, Judge.

After the appellant (defendant below) was issued a citation (#40728-MG) for allegedly running a red light, she requested a court hearing to plead her innocence. Due to an error regarding payment of the ticket, the case was reset. At the arraignment the appellant appeared and entered a plea of not guilty.

*156At trial, the officer who issued the citation appeared and testified that the appellant ran the red light in violation of § 316.074, F. S. (1985). The appellant testified and introduced a picture of the traffic scene to show that the officer’s vantage point was impaired in order to determine if appellant ran the red light. Based on the officer’s testimony and the appellant’s testimony and picture, the judge below found the defendant (appellant) guilty and this appeal follows. Appellant contends that the officer’s testimony is insufficient evidence to prove that she ran a red light.

The Court below had the opportunity to hear the officer’s testimony and to hear the defendant’s (appellant’s) case, including observation of the photo that the defendant (appellant) introduced to support her position. Based on this, the court arrived at its conclusion that the defendant (appellant) was guilty of running a red light. Such a determination is entirely within the court’s discretion. The court was swayed by the officer’s testimony and, as the trier of fact, was acting within its boundaries by so deciding. Therefore, the officer’s testimony is sufficient to find the defendant guilty of running a red light.

Affirmed.

KORNBLUM and GREENBAUM, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of NEON Systems, Inc. (the“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, Mark Cresswell, principal executive officer of the Company, certify,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)          The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)          The informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ Mark Cresswell                                                   |   |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Mark Cresswell                                                       |
| President and Chief Executive Officer (principal  executive officer) |
| November 14, 2005                                               |

 

----
Exhibit 13.2

CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of Kyocera Corporation (the Company) hereby certifies, to such
officers knowledge, that the Companys annual report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2010 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated: June 30, 2010



/S/    SHOICHI
AOKIName:

Shoichi AokiTitle:

Director, Managing Executive Officer
and General Manager ofCorporate Financial & Accounting Group
(Principal Financial Officer)
[No. 20652-1-III.

Division Three.

November 5, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Douglas Eric McGowan, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 01-1-00021-8, James M. Murphy, J., entered November 13, 2001. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Kato, J., concurred in by Brown, C.J., and Schultheis, J.
#### Marie B. Swanton, Respondent, *v.*John Curley, Appellant.

Submitted April 19, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

Motion to amend remittitur or for a reargument denied, with ten dollars costs and necessary printing disbursements. (See 273 N. Y. 325.)
Exhibit 23.1




Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46722-01) pertaining to the IHCC Retirement Savings Plan and Trust (formerly the Kentucky Investors, Inc. and Affiliated Companies 401(k) Savings Plan and Trust) of our report dated March 11,  2011, with respect to the 2010 consolidated financial statements of Investors Heritage Capital Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
 
 
 /s/Mountjoy Chilton Medley LLP
 Louisville, Kentucky
 March 11, 2011
  
  Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm
 
 
 We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 33-46722-01) pertaining to the IHCC Retirement Savings Plan and Trust (formerly the Kentucky Investors, Inc. and Affiliated Companies 401(k) Savings Plan and Trust) of our report dated March 19, 2010, with respect to the 2009 consolidated financial statements of Investors Heritage Capital Corporation included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2010.
 
 
   Cincinnati, Ohio
 March 11, 2011
Editorial Note on Part 20
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 20 appear at 57 FR 31451, July 16, 1992.

§ 20.3 Agency responsibilities. ( a ) As authorized by law, each Department of Labor agency may report all delinquent consumer debts to consumer credit reporting agencies and may also report all commercial debts to appropriate commercial credit reporting agencies.
( b ) Information provided to a consumer credit reporting agency on delinquent consumer debts from a system of records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. 552a, must be maintained by the Department of Labor in accordance with that Act, except as otherwise modified by law. Furthermore, no disclosure may be made until the appropriate notice of system of records has been amended in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552a(e)(11).
( c ) The Chief Financial Officer, or his or her designee, shall have the responsibility for obtaining satisfactory assurances from each credit reporting agency to which information will be provided, concerning compliance by the credit reporting agency with the Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. 1681 *et seq.*) and any other Federal law governing the provision of credit information.
( d ) The information disclosed to the credit reporting agency is limited to: ( 1 ) The name, address, taxpayer identification number, and other information necessary to establish the identity of the individual,
( 2 ) the amount, status, and history of the claim, and
( 3 ) the Department of Labor agency or program under which the claim arose.
( e ) The agency official providing information to a credit reporting agency: ( 1 ) Shall promptly disclose to each credit reporting agency to which the original disclosure was made, any substantial change in the status or amount of the claim; and
( 2 ) shall within 30 days whenever feasible, or otherwise promptly verify or correct, as appropriate, information concerning the claim upon the request of any such credit reporting agency for verification of any or all information so disclosed.
( f ) Each Department of Labor agency is responsible for ensuring the continued accuracy of calculations and records relating to its claims, and for the prompt notification to the credit reporting agency of any substantial change in the status or amount of the claim. The agencies shall promptly follow-up on any allegation made by a debtor that the records of the agency concerning a claim are in error. Agencies should respond promptly to communications from the debtor, within 30 days whenever feasible.
( g ) The agency official responsible for providing information to a consumer credit reporting agency shall take reasonable action to locate the individual owing the debt prior to disclosing any information to a consumer credit reporting agency.
August 12, 2011

By Email George Wellington, Division Chief Foreign Air Carrier Licensing Division U.S. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Ave., S.E. Washington, D.C. 20590

Re: Aeroenlaces Nacionales, S.A. de C.V. (vivaAerobus) Application for Exemptions (Monterrey-Orlando/Mi ami; Guadalajara-Houston/San Antonio); OST-2011-0148

Dear Mr. Wellington,

vivaAerobus has completed its poll of the carrier parties served with its application of August 9, 2011, for exemptions pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 40109 for service between Monterrey, Mexico, and Orlando, Flor ida; Monterrey, Mexico, and Miami, Florida; Guadalajara, Mexico , and Houston, Texas; and Gu adalajara, Mexico, and San Antonio, Texas and for amendment to its foreign air carrier permit.

There were no objections to the proposed service by any of the carriers served. We respectfully request expedited approval of the exemption appli cation and the request to amend the carrier’s foreign air carrier permit to integrate its various exemption

authorities.

Respectfully submitted,

David M. Kirstein

cc: Service ListCertificate of Service

I hereby certify that I have this day se rved the foregoing document by email on the following persons:

anbird@fedex.com

anita.mosner@hklaw.com benjamin_slocum@usairways.com brian.hedberg@dot.gov byerlyjr@state.gov

carl.nelson@aa.com

dan.weiss@coair.com efaberman@wileyrein.com george.wellington@dot.gov howard_kass@usairways.com jeff.morgan@delta.com jennifer.nowak@hklaw.com jhill@dlalaw.com john.allen@faa.gov jrichardson@johnlrichardson.com

msinick@ssd.com pmurphy@lopmurphy.com

rbkeiner@crowell.com robert.land@jetblue.com rpommer@atlasair.com rsilverberg@sgbdc.com

sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com

slachter@lachter-clements.com

sllunsford@fedex.com steve.morrissey@united.com

Lyndsey Grunewald

August 12, 2011
<PAGE>   1

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23




                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-8 (Registration Statement Nos. 33-54879, 33-48490,
33-48673, 33-52797, 33-52799, 333-61351, 333-28621, 333-45212, and 333-56534)
and the Prospectus constituting part of the Registration Statements on Form S-3
(Registration Statement Nos. 333-93023 and 333-74665) of Kmart Corporation of
our report dated March 13, 2001 relating to the financial statements, which
appears in this Form 10-K.


/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
------------------------------
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
Detroit, Michigan
March 21, 2001
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 96 (Wednesday, May 17, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 31306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-12330]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER00-1655-001]


Southern Company Services, Inc.; Notice of Filing

May 11, 2000.
    Take notice that on May 8, 2000, Southern Company Services, Inc. 
(SCSI), acting as agent for Alabama Power Company, Georgia Power 
Company, Gulf Power Company, Mississippi Power Company, and Savannah 
Electric and Power Company (collectively referred to as the Operating 
Companies), submitted for filing a response to the Staff's deficiency 
letter issued in this docket on April 14, 2000.
    Copies of the filing were served on all intervenors in the 
proceeding and upon the affected State commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest such filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 285.214). All such motions and 
protests should be filed on or before May 22, 2000. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission to determine the appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection. This filing may also be viewed on 
the Internet at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-
2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-12330 Filed 5-16-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M