alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 102 (Thursday, May 25, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 33799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13139]



[[Page 33799]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-999; MM Docket No. 00-73; RM-9861]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Hornbrook, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making 
filed on behalf of Logan and Company requesting the allotment of 
Channel 255A to Hornbrook, California, as that locality's first local 
aural transmission service. As Hornbrook is not incorporated or listed 
in the U.S. Census, information is requested regarding the attributes 
of that locality to determine whether it is a bona fide community for 
allotment purposes. Coordinates used for this proposal are 41-53-06 NL 
and 122-35-03 WL.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before June 26, 2000, and reply 
comments on or before July 11, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties 
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: James A. Koerner, 
Esq., Koerner & Olender, P.C., 5809 Nicholson Lane, Suite 124, North 
Bethesda, MD 20852.

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. 00-73, adopted April 26, 
2000, and released May 5, 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 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. 00-13139 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATE OF THE PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER
OF DIOMED HOLDINGS, INC. (REGISTRANT)
PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, James A. Wylie, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify to
the best of my knowledge and belief pursuant to Section 906 of Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Section 1350) that:

(1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2005,
which this statement accompanies, 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of
operations of the Registrant.


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, chapter
63 title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form
10-QSB or as a separate disclosure document.

Date:  August 12, 2005                             /s/ JAMES A. WYLIE, JR.
                                                   ---------------------------
                                                   James A. Wylie, Jr.
                                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                                   (Principal Executive Officer)
#### § 500.217 Responsibility of Secretary for service.

Upon receipt of any substituted service, as described in § 500.216, the same shall be forwarded by certified mail to the permanent address furnished by the person for whom service is accepted and to such other address as may be determined appropriate by the Secretary. Such mailing shall complete the Secretary's responsibility in connection with the substituted service requirement of the Act.
#### § 515.6 Audits.

The accounting records and the supporting data pertaining to expenditures for investigations and inspections under the Acts shall be subject to audit by the Division and the Secretary of Labor, annually, or so often as the Administrator and the Secretary of Labor, may require.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 



 
 April 2, 2015 
 Brian
Farley 
 3600 Holly Lane North, Suite 40 
 Plymouth, MN 55447

 Dear Brian: 
 This letter describes certain
compensation changes in connection with your transition from Chief Executive Officer of Entellus Medical, Inc. (“Entellus”) to your new role as Executive Chairman of the Entellus Board of Directors. In signing this letter, you hereby
consent and agree to the terms of your employment relationship with Entellus set forth below, effective April 2, 2015. This letter shall constitute an amendment to your employment letter agreement, dated March 8, 2010 and your severance
agreement, dated January 1, 2015 (the “Severance Agreement”). 
 1. Position. Effective as of April 2, 2015, you
will continue as an employee of Entellus in the position of Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors. 
 2. Base Salary and Annual
Bonus. As compensation for your services in 2015 as Executive Chairman, you will receive a prorated percentage of your current annual base salary (which is $550,000 on an annualized basis), effective as of April 2, 2015. You will remain
eligible to receive an annual cash bonus in accordance with the Company’s annual bonus program for the Company’s 2015 fiscal year, and your target bonus will equal 75% of your base salary actually earned in 2015. 

3. Stock Options. As Executive Chairman, you will continue to provide service to Entellus and your currently-outstanding stock options
will continue to vest through such service in accordance with the terms of the stock option agreements. 
 4. Severance. You further
agree that neither the foregoing nor any action taken by Entellus in connection therewith (including without limitation the appointment of a new Chief Executive Officer of Entellus) will constitute a termination of your employment without Cause or
an event giving rise to Good Reason for purposes of your Severance Agreement or any other agreement between you and Entellus. 
  

					
	Sincerely,				
			
	/s/ Robert S. White				/s/ Guido Neels
	Robert S. White				Guido Neels
	Entellus Medical, Inc.				Compensation Committee Chairman
			
	Accepted, Acknowledged and Agreed:				
			
	/s/ Brian Farley				  

	Name: Brian Farley
Honorable H. D. Stringer

CountyAttorney Hall Cbunty Memphis, Texas
Dear Sir: Opinionno. O-3633 Re: Does the State or a defendanthave the right to subpoena and attach out of countywitnesses in a misdemeanor case? This is to acknowledgereceipt ofyour recent letter asking our opinion as stated in the above question.

While we have made a careful study of the question, in the 1Fght of the statutesand the case cited by you, we are unable to find any authorityauthorizing the use of a subpoena or attachment for out of county witnesses in misdemeanor cases.

In the case of Cotbren v. State, 139 Tex. Cr.R. 644, 141 S.W. (2d) 594, cited in your letter of June 7th, the appellantwas convicted in the county court of San Saba County on a misdemeanor charge and assessed a fine. ou motion for rehearingappellant insistedthat error was committed in the refusal of a continuancebecause of an absent witness. We quote fromJudge Grave's opinion on the motion for rehearing:

"Appellant'srequest for a continuancewas denied, as well as his request to have a subpoena issued for suchwitness, the trial court stating that he did not think suchwas necessary. Nowhere did appellant state what he expected to prove by the son of the State's witness, and it **is** evident from the record that he did not know, as he only found out that such witness was present at the alleged sale when the agent so testified. It was also shown that the witness was not in the countyat the time of the trial,Honorable Il. D. Stringer, page 2

but was supposedto be In Corpus Christi, and thereforenot amenable to a subpoena Issued out of the county court." (Emphasis ours)
As stated above, we have been unable to find any other expressions of the Court of CriminalAppeals relative to process for witnesses in misdemeanor cases in counties outside the county of prosecution. The rule that such process is unavailable,however, seems to be generallyrecognized. That the Legislature of this State recognizes such rule is evident from the insertion of Section 5 In the present so-called "RotCheck Law." Such sectlonrequlres process to be Issued and served "In the County or out of the
?EP ."provides that suchprocess shall "ha the same b n ing force and effect as though the offensrb eing prosecuted were a felony;" and furtherdeclares: "andall officers issuing ana serving suchprocess In or out of the county wherein the prosecution is pendinR.and all witnesses from within or without the countywherein the uroseoutlon is pendlng, shallbe compensated in likemanner as though the offense were a felony in grade." (Emphasisours). See GeneralLaws, 46th Legislature,p. 246; Art. 567b,Vernon'sAnnotated Penal Code, pocket supplement,Sec. 5.

In vFew of the above expressionsby the Court of CrlmlnalAppeals and the Legislature, we are impelled to adhere to the opinionsheretoforerendered by thisDepartment that the question as stated shouldbe answered in the negative.
Yours very truly
APPROVED JUN 14, 1941 /s/ Grover Sellers ATTORNEY GERERAL OF TEXRS

FIRST ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BY /S/ BenjaminWoodall

Assistant BW:db/mjs APPROVED OPINION coMMITTEE BY BWB Chairman
#### Woodrow Wilson BEAM, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 23913.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

June 19, 1967.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 2, 1967.

*938Vaughn Terrell, Rome, Ga., for appellant.

F. D. Hand, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Charles L. Goodson, U. S. Atty., Atlanta, Ga., for appellee.

Before BROWN and SIMPSON, Circuit Judges, and SUTTLE, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant challenges his conviction under 26 U.S.C.A. § 5604(a) (1) for possession of 53 gallons of non-tax paid whiskey. The evidence of dominion and control was adequate and testimony of prior conviction, expressly limited to impeachment, was permissible.

Affirmed.
§ 531.1 Definitions. ( a ) *Administrator* means the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division or his authorized representative. The Secretary of Labor has delegated to the Administrator the functions vested in him under section 3(m) of the Act.
( b ) *Act* means the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, as amended.
§ 4901.21 Restrictions in general. ( a ) *Records not disclosable.* PBGC will not disclose records to the extent prohibited by section 552(b)(1) or (3) of FOIA, sections 4010 and 4043 of ERISA, or other statutes.
( b ) *Records disclosure of which may be refused.* Unless prohibited from disclosure by paragraph (a) of this section, PBGC need not but may, as provided in § 4901.5(b), disclose records exempted from FOIA, which include as of August 24, 2022 records under: ( 1 ) Section 552(b)(2) of FOIA, dealing in general with internal agency personnel rules and practices;
( 2 ) Section 552(b)(4) of FOIA, dealing in general with trade secrets and commercial and financial information;
( 3 ) Section 552(b)(5) of FOIA, dealing in general with inter-agency and intra-agency memoranda and letters;
( 4 ) Section 552(b)(6) of FOIA, dealing in general with personnel, medical, and similar files;
( 5 ) Section 552(b)(7) of FOIA, dealing in general with records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes;
( 6 ) Section 552(b)(8) of FOIA, dealing in general with reports on financial institutions; or
( 7 ) Section 552(b)(9) of FOIA, dealing in general with information about wells.
[87 FR 43997, July 25, 2022]
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 153 (Tuesday, August 9, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Pages 48882-48883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20139]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLES956000-L14200000-BJ0000-LXSITRST0000]


Eastern States: Filing of Plat of Survey

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice Of Filing Of Plat Of Survey; Wisconsin.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) will file the plat of 
survey of the lands described below in the BLM-Eastern States office in 
Springfield, Virginia, 30 calendar days from the date of publication in 
the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management--Eastern 
States, 7450 Boston Boulevard, Springfield, Virginia 22153. Attn: 
Cadastral Survey. Persons who use a telecommunications device for the 
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-
800-877-8339 to contact the above individual during normal business 
hours. The FIRS is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a 
message or question with the above individual. You will receive a reply 
during normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The survey was requested by the Bureau of 
Indian Affairs.
    The land surveyed is:

Fourth Principal Meridian, Wisconsin T. 40 N., R. 5 E.

    The plat of survey represents the dependent resurvey of a portion 
of the subdivisional lines of Section 8, and the dependent resurvey of 
Lots 2, 3, and 4 of Block 49, and Lot 4 of Block 50 of the modified 
Townsite of Lac Du Flambeau, in Section 8, in Township 40 North, Range 
5 East, in the State of Wisconsin, and was accepted June 23, 2011.
    We will place a copy of the plat we described in the open files. It 
will be

[[Page 48883]]

available to the public as a matter of information.
    If BLM receives a protest against the survey, as shown on the plat, 
prior to the date of the official filing, we will stay the filing 
pending our consideration of the protest.
    We will not officially file the plat until the day after we have 
accepted or dismissed all protests and they have become final, 
including decisions on appeals.

     Dated: August 2, 2011.
Dominica Van Koten,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor.
[FR Doc. 2011-20139 Filed 8-8-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GJ-P
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 103 (Friday, May 26, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 34155]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13262]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


National Nuclear Security Administration; Rescheduling of Scoping 
Meeting for the Proposed Relocation of the Los Alamos National 
Laboratory Technical Area 18 Missions

AGENCY: Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration.

ACTION: Rescheduling of scoping meeting.

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

SUMMARY: On May 2, 2000, the Department of Energy (DOE) announced in 
the Federal Register, 65 FR 25472), that it would hold scoping meetings 
for the proposal to relocate missions at Technical Area 18 (TA-18). Due 
to the fire in the Los Alamos, New Mexico area, DOE announced in the 
Federal Register that the Los Alamos scoping meeting scheduled for May 
17, 2000 was postponed (65 FR 31536). DOE has now rescheduled the Los 
Alamos scoping meeting for May 30th, 7-10 p.m. at the Northern New 
Mexico Community College, 921 Paseo de Onate, Espanola, New Mexico 
87532. DOE regrets any inconvenience for this postponement. DOE is also 
announcing that the scoping period, originally scheduled to end on June 
1, 2000, has been extended until June 15, 2000. Any questions 
associated with the TA-18 Project can be asked by calling Mr. Jay Rose 
at 1-800-832-0885, ext. 65484.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., this 22nd day of May 2000.
Henry Garson,
NEPA Compliance Officer, Office of Defense Programs, Department of 
Energy.
[FR Doc. 00-13262 Filed 5-25-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 7
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 7 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 7.6 Filing of wage determination record. ( a ) In representing the officer issuing the wage determination the Solicitor shall, among other things, file promptly with the Board a record supporting his findings and conclusions, after receipt of service of the petition.
( b ) In representing the officer issuing the wage determination the Solicitor shall file with the Board a statement of the position of the officer issuing the wage determination concerning any findings challenged in the petition; and shall make service on the petitioner and any other interested persons.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack

, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

September 25, 2019

s0918 

# Order

Clerk September 25, 2019

158240

SUSAN BISIO,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v SC: 158240

COA: 335422

Oakland CC: 2015

- 150462

- CZ

THE CITY OF THE VILLAGE OF

CLARKSTON,

Defendant

- Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal t he July 3, 2018

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in holding that the documents sought by

the plaintiff were not within the definition of “public record” i n § 2(i) of the Freedom of

Information Act (FOIA), MCL 15.231 et seq .; and (2) whether the defendant city’s

charter

- appointed attorney was an agent of the city such that his corresponden ce with

third parties, which were never shared with the city or in the city’s possession, were

public records subject to the FOIA, see Breighner v Michigan High Sch Athletic Ass’n

, 471 Mich 217, 233 ns 6 & 7 (2004); Hoffman v Bay City School Dist , 137 Mich App 333

(1984). The time allowed for oral argument shall be 20 minut es for each side. MCR

7.314(B)(1).

The Michigan Press Association, Detroit Free Press, Michigan Municipal League,

and Michigan Townships Association are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other

persons or groups interested in the determination of th e issues presented in this case may

move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.
#### Carlo Aurora, Plaintiff, v Ford Motor Credit Corporation et al., Defendants. (Action No. 1.) Christopher Mitchell, Appellant, et al., Plaintiff, v Ford Motor Credit Corp. et al., Respondents, et al., Defendants. (Action No. 2.)

[698 NYS2d 534]

—In two related actions to recover damages for personal injuries, Christopher Mitchell, a plaintiff in Action No. 2, appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Doyle, J.), dated December 9, 1998, as denied that branch of his motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in that action.

Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, on the law and as a matter of discretion, without costs or disbursements, and that branch of the appellant’s motion, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in Action No. 2 is granted.

Under the circumstances of this case, the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying that branch of the appellant’s motion which was, in effect, for summary judgment dismissing the counterclaim asserted against him in Action No. 2 on the ground that it was barred by the doctrine of collateral estoppel. Although the appellant’s motion was not made within 120 days of the filing of the note of issue, he demonstrated good cause for his delay in making the motion *(see,*CPLR 3212 [a]). Additionally, it is clear that the doctrine of collateral estoppel *(see generally, Mahl v Citibank,*234 AD2d 348) bars the counterclaim against the appellant in Action No. *4192 *(see, Aurora v Ford Motor Credit Corp.,*260 AD2d 417), and therefore the purposes of CPLR 3212 (a) are not served by denial of the requested relief *(see, Rossi v Arnot Ogden Med. Ctr.,*252 AD2d 778). Mangano, P. J., Ritter, Joy, McGinity and Smith, 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 OF 2002






Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. (the “Company”), that the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: March 30, 2011





By:/s/ Samuel R. Newborn


Samuel R. Newborn


principal executive officer








Date: March 30, 2011





By:/s/ Bruce R. Foster


Bruce R. Foster


Executive Vice President and


Chief Financial Officer





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and will be retained by 4Kids Entertainment, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.