alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35588-35589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13701]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-1112; MM Docket No. 94-70; RM-8474 and RM-8706]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Moncks Corner, Kiawah Island, and 
Sampit, SC

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: This Memorandum Opinion and Order partially grants two 
petitions for reconsideration of a Report and Order, 61 FR 42228 
(August 14, 1996), and overturns that Report and Order.

[[Page 35589]]

The document admits new evidence presented by Sampit Broadcasters 
(``SB'') and L.M. Communications II of South Carolina, Inc. (``LMC'') 
that demonstrates the availability of a transmitter site for LMC and 
that Sampit, South Carolina is a ``community'' for allotment purposes. 
Since both rulemaking proponents were found to be qualified to 
effectuate their mutually exclusive proposals, the proposals were 
compared to determine the winner. LMC's proposal to substitute Channel 
288C2 for Channel 287C3 at Moncks Corner, South Carolina, reallot 
Channel 288C2 from Moncks Corner to Kiawah Island, South Carolina, and 
modify Station WNST(FM)'s license accordingly was preferred over SB's 
proposal to allot Channel 289A to Sampit, South Carolina. The new 
coordinates for LMC's transmitter site at Kiawah Island are: 32-38-57 
NL and 80-02-11 WL.

DATES: Effective July 3, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: R. Barthen Gorman, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 94-70, adopted May 10, 
2000, and released May 19, 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 at Portals II, CY-A257, 
445 12th Street, SW, Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, 
International Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, located at 
1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20036.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.
    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, and 336.


Sec. 73.202  [AMENDED]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under South 
Carolina, is amended by removing Moncks Corner, Channel 287C3 and 
adding Kiawah Island, Channel 288C2.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-13701 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-U
ESTIMATED1 FY 2012 ALLOTMENTS ADMINISTRATION ON DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES 

[Protection and Advocacy Systems]

Percentage of total allotted Estimated 2012 allotment

Total 100.00000 2$40,123,113

Alabama 0.01646 660,543

Alaska 0.00959 384,693

Arizona 0.01748 701,542

Arkansas 0.01020 409,079

California 0.08484 3,403,846

Colorado 0.01155 463,556

Connecticut 0.00994 398,784

Delaware 0.00959 384,693

District of Columbia 0.00959 384,693

Florida 0.04679 1,877,320

Georgia 0.02780 1,115,512

Hawaii 0.00959 384,693

Idaho 0.00959 384,693

Illinois 0.03383 1,357,362

Indiana 0.01990 798,483

Iowa 0.00973 390,580

Kansas 0.00959 384,693

Kentucky 0.01555 623,981

Louisiana 0.01520 609,929

Maine 0.00959 384,693

Maryland 0.01244 499,010

Massachusetts 0.01600 641,917

Michigan 0.03232 1,296,851

Minnesota 0.01328 533,010

Mississippi 0.01154 463,159

Missouri 0.01838 737,510

Montana 0.00959 384,693

Nebraska 0.00959 384,693

Nevada 0.00959 384,693

New Hampshire 0.00959 384,693

New Jersey 0.01961 786,673

New Mexico 0.00959 384,693

New York 0.04964 1,991,618

North Carolina 0.02813 1,128,824

North Dakota 0.00959 384,693

Ohio 0.03598 1,443,662

Oklahoma 0.01091 437,660

Oregon 0.01070 429,424

Pennsylvania 0.03710 1,488,376
Rhode Island 0.00959 384,693

South Carolina 0.01503 602,915

South Dakota 0.00959 384,693

Tennessee 0.01979 794,135

Texas 0.06211 2,491,848

Utah 0.00959 384,693

Vermont 0.00959 384,693

Virginia 0.01933 775,504

Washington 0.01581 634,184

West Virginia 0.00988 396,242

Wisconsin 0.01688 677,276

Wyoming 0.00959 384,693

American Samoa 0.00513 205,808

Guam 0.00513 205,808

Commonwealth of the Northern 

Marianas Islands (CNMI)

0.00513 205,808

Puerto Rico 0.02765 1,109,284

U.S. Virgin Islands 0.00513 205,808

Native American Protection and 

Advocacy3

0.00513 205,808

1

Fiscal Year 2012 Estimated Allotments are based on FY 2011 actual allotments. 

2

In accordance with Public Law 106–402, Section 142(a)(6)(A), up to $818,839 may be withheld from 

the appropriated amount to fund technical assistance as the statute provides for spending up to two 

percent of the amount appropriated for this purpose. Unused funds will be re-allotted in accordance 

with Section 122(e) of the Act.

3

American Indian Consortia are eligible to receive an allotment under Section 142(a)(6)(B) of the Act.
Editorial Note on Part 8
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 8 appear at 61 FR 19985, May 3, 1996.

§ 8.11 Presentations of other interested persons. ( a ) Where a petition has been filed for review of a wage determination or other final decision of the Administrator or authorized representative, the Board shall notify the parties known or believed to be interested in the case. The Associate Solicitor and any other parties interested in presenting their views shall file a statement within 30 days of the filing of the petition (or such other time as is specified by the Board, with consideration of procurement deadlines, as appropriate).
( b ) Where a petition has been filed for review of a decision issued pursuant to subparts B, D or E of part 6 of this title, any other parties to the proceeding interested in presenting their views shall file a statement within 30 days of the filing of the petition (or such other time as is specified by the Board, with consideration of procurement deadlines, as appropriate).
§ 780.715 Counting employees “employed in the establishment.” ( a ) Employees employed “in the establishment,” if employed “in such operations” as previously explained, are to be counted in determining whether the five-employee limitation on the exemption is exceeded.
( b ) Employees employed “in” the establishment clearly include all employees engaged, other than casually or sporadically, in performing any duties of their employment there, regardless of whether they are direct employees of the country elevator establishment or are employees of a farmer, independent contractor, or other person who are suffered or permitted to work (see Act, section 3(g)) in the establishment. However, tradesmen, such as dealers and their salesmen, for example, are not employed in the elevator simply because they visit the establishment to do business there. Neither are workers who deliver, on behalf of their employers, goods used in the sideline business of the establishment to be considered employed in the elevator.
( c ) The use of the language “employed in” rather than “engaged in” makes it plain also that the employees to be counted include all those employed by the establishment in its operations without regard to whether they are engaged in the establishment or away from it in performing their duties. This has been the consistent interpretation of similar language in other sections of the Act.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE: PROMULGATION OF

CONSUMER PRICE INDEX PURSUANT

TO 42 Pa.C.S. §§ 1725.1(f) and

3571(c)(4) :

:

:

: No. 540

Judicial Administration Docket

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of October , 2020

, IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Article V,

Section 10(c) of the Constitution of Pennsylvania and Section 3502(a) of the Judicial

Code, 42 Pa.C.S. § 3502(a), that the Court Administrator of Pennsylvan ia is authorized

to obtain and publish in the Pennsylvania Bulletin the percentage increase in the

Consumer Price I ndex for calendar year 201 9 as required by Act 96 of 2010, 42 Pa.C.S.

§§ 1725.1(f) and 3571(c)(4) (as amended).
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Maverick Minerals Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date here of (the "report"), I, Robert Kinloch, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)   The information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated this 17th day of June, 2004.



| | /s/ Robert Kinloch
Robert Kinloch
Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

























---
#### § 541.105 Particular weight.

To determine whether an employee's suggestions and recommendations are given “particular weight,” factors to be considered include, but are not limited to, whether it is part of the employee's job duties to make such suggestions and recommendations; the frequency with which such suggestions and recommendations are made or requested; and the frequency with which the employee's suggestions and recommendations are relied upon. Generally, an executive's suggestions and recommendations must pertain to employees whom the executive customarily and regularly directs. It does not include an occasional suggestion with regard to the change in status of a co-worker. An employee's suggestions and recommendations may still be deemed to have “particular weight” even if a higher level manager's recommendation has more importance and even if the employee does not have authority to make the ultimate decision as to the employee's change in status.
---

Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned, Ari Muljana, hereby certifies, pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (a) | the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Manas Petroleum
      Corporation for the period ended June 30, 2009 fully complies with the
      requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
      of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |     |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 
| | (b) | information contained in the quarterly report on Form
      10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition
      and results of operations of Manas Petroleum
Corporation.                             

Date: August 14, 2009

/s/ Ari MuljanaAri MuljanaChief Financial
Officer and Treasurer(Principal Financial Officer and Principal Accounting
Officer)

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Manas Petroleum
Corporation and will be retained by Manas Petroleum Corporation and furnished to
the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---
#### § 94.645 Federal agency or agency.

*Federal agency or agency* means any United States executive department, military department, government corporation, government controlled corporation, any other establishment in the executive branch (including the Executive Office of the President), or any independent regulatory agency.
**Exhibit 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TOSECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I,Jan L. Murley, certify that:

1.                                       Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of The BoydsCollection, Ltd.;

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

4.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

a)             Designed such disclosure controlsand procedures, or caused such disclosure control and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;

b)            Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation, and

c)             Disclosed in this report any changein the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

----

5.             The registrant’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

a)             All significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control overfinancial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect theregistrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and

b)            Any fraud, whether or not material,that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.
| /s/ Jan L. Murley        |   |   |
|--------------------------|--------|--------|
| Jan L. Murley            |   |   |
| Chief Executive  Officer |   |   |
| Date:  June 8, 2006 |   |   |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-1113

LAUNEIL SANDERS; NATALIE CAROLINE SANDERS; AARON NEIL SANDERS, Plaintiffs - Appellants, and LAUNEIL FREEDOM CONSTITUTIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL FOUNDATION, Plaintiff, versusUNITED STATES OF AMERICA; STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA; STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-96-471-3-MU) Submitted: July 24, 1997 Decided: August 5, 1997 Before HAMILTON, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.2Launeil Sanders, Appellant Pro Se. James Michael Sullivan, Assistant United States Attorney, Charlotte, North Carolina; Virginia Anne Gibbons, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina; Christie Newman Barrett, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SOUTH CAROLINA, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal the district court's order dismissing their complaint for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record andthe district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Sanders v. United States , No. CA-96-471-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Jan. 7, 1997). We deny Appellants' motion for appointment of counsel. We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 7
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM MERCURY
GENERAL CORP.  AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>                         1,214,986
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>                                0
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>                                  0
<EQUITIES>                                     173,522
<MORTGAGE>                                           0
<REAL-ESTATE>                                        0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                               1,448,248
<CASH>                                           3,011
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                                   0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>                          57,264
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,725,532
<POLICY-LOSSES>                                409,061
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                            309,376
<POLICY-OTHER>                                       0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>                                0
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                                 75,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        47,412
<OTHER-SE>                                     752,180
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,725,532
<PREMIUMS>                                   1,031,280
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>                             86,812
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                               4,973
<OTHER-INCOME>                                   4,881
<BENEFITS>                                     654,729
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>                    224,883
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>                            33,579
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                209,779
<INCOME-TAX>                                    53,473
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            156,306
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   156,306
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.84
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.82
<RESERVE-OPEN>                                 311,754
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                            641,911
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                               12,818
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                             373,823
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                               206,390
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                                386,270
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>                       (12,818)
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 10.1

 

FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE GFI GROUP INC.

2008 EQUITY INCENTIVE PLAN

 

This Fourth Amendment (this “Fourth Amendment”) to the GFI Group Inc. 2008 Equity Incentive Plan, as amended (the “Plan”) of GFI Group Inc. (the “Company”) has been deemed advisable and has been adopted pursuant to the terms of Section 10.1 of the Plan by the Company’s Board of Directors and is effective as of February 9, 2012, subject to stockholder approval. Terms used herein but not otherwise defined shall have the meanings given to such terms in the Plan.

 

1.                                      Amendment to the Plan. The first sentence of Article 4.1 of the Plan is hereby amended by deleting “30,400,000” and substituting “37,400,000” therefor.

 

2.                                      The Plan. In all other respects the Plan is ratified and shall, as so changed by this Fourth Amendment, continue in full force and effect.

 

* * * * *
|   | (i)      the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the      period ended December 31, 2008 (the “Report”) fully      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as      applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;      and |
|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (ii)      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date: March      13, 2009 |   /s/      GABRIEL TIRADOR                      |
|--------------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------|
|                           |   Gabriel      Tirador, Chief Executive Officer |
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 41019 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v.
OSCAR ASAEL GONZALES

- MATUTE , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 7:14

- CR

- 614

- 1

Before JOLLY, GRAVES, and COSTA , Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the judgment in a criminal case, Oscar Asael Gonzales

Matute raises an argument that is foreclosed by United States v. Morales

- Mota , 704 F.3d 410, 412 (5th Cir. 2013), which rejected the argument that the Texas offense of “burglary of a habitatio n” is broader than the generic, contemporary definition of “burglary of a dwelling” under U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2(b)(1)(A)(ii) because it defines the “owner” of a habitation as a person with a “greater right

* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5 , the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED August 1 8 , 2015

Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-41019 Document: 00513158031 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/18/2015No. 14

- 41019

2 to possession of the property than the actor.” The mot ion for summary disposition is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED. Case: 14-41019 Document: 00513158031 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/18/2015