alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Rockingham

No. 7485

#### State of New Hampshire v. Kevin Fraser

October 29, 1976

*David H. Souter,*attorney general, and *Richard B. Micha-ud (Mr. Michaud*orally), appearing pursuant to rule 23, for the State.

*Lee A. Strimbeck,*by brief and orally, for the defendant.

Memorandum Opinion

The defendant, convicted in Derry District Court on a complaint of assault, appealed to the superior court. Upon receipt of the defendant’s appeal, the clerk of the superior court duly sent *643notice to the defendant at his last known address that pursuant to superior court rule 86 the payment of an entry fee was required to perfect his appeal. The fee was not paid, and after the expiration of the 20-day period specified by rule 86, the clerk remanded the case to the district court for imposition of the original sentence. Defendant’s motion to reinstate the appeal was denied by *Perkins,*J., and all questions of law raised by his exceptions thereto were reserved and transferred.

The clerk’s letter informing the defendant of the necessary procedure for perfecting his appeal was sent to the home of the defendant’s mother in Chester, the address initially provided to the court by the defendant. It was never received by him, however, because at the time of its mailing he had moved to the home of a friend in Londonderry. The defendant did not inform the court of this change of address, nor did he leave a forwarding address at the Chester post office. Where a defendant has given directions specifying where notice shall be sent, it is his duty to inform the notifier of any change in address. The fact that a party fails to receive a letter of notice due to his own omission in supplying this information does not render the notice defective. *Devore v. Industrial Comm’n,*129 Colo. 10, 266 P.2d 774 (1964); *McCoy v. Bureau of Unempl. Compensation,*81 Ohio App. 158, 77 N.E.2d 76 (1947); 1 M. Merrill, Notice § 639, at 729 (1952). Accordingly, we hold that the letter of the clerk of court, sent to the defendant’s last address of record, constituted due notice, and that the remand of the defendant’s case to the district court following his default under rule 86 was proper.

*Exceptions denied.*
**SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION**

**WASHINGTON, D.C. 20549**

**FORM 8-K**

 

CURRENT REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d)

OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

 

 

November 19, 2003 

Date of Report (Date of earliest event reported)

 

 

0-25167

Commission File Number 

 

 

**GSL HOLDINGS, INC.**

(Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter)

British Virgin Islands                                                                                                N/A

(State or other jurisdiction of                                                            (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.)               

 incorporation or organization)                         

123 South Los Robles Avenue, Pasadena, California 92708

(Address of principal executive offices)

 

(626) 356-3888

(Issuer's telephone number, including area code)

 

Bethurum Laboratories, 6371 Richmond #200, Houston, Texas 77057

(Former name, former address and former fiscal year, if changed since last report)

 
 
**Item 5.    Other Events**

 

On November 19, 2003,  The Company's majority shareholder, EverbrightDevelopment Overseas Ltd., entered into a subscription agreement with theCompany to purchase 880,000 shares of the Company's common stock at a price of$2.50 per share.  The shares will be issued pursuant to Regulation S. The total payment for these shares is $2,200,000.

 

On November 19, 2003, Gental International Industry Development Company Limitedentered into a subscription agreement with the Company to purchase 483,676shares of the Company's common stock at a price of $2.50 per share.  Theshares will be issued pursuant to Regulation S.  The total payment forthese shares is $1,209,190.

 

On November 25, 2003, The Company's majority shareholder, Everbright DevelopmentOverseas Ltd., entered into another subscription agreement with the Company topurchase 920,000 shares of the Company's common stock at a price of $2.50 pershare.  The shares will be issued pursuant to Regulation S.  The totalpayment for these shares is $2,300,000.

 

On November 28, 2003, The Company's majority shareholder, Everbright DevelopmentOverseas Ltd., entered into another subscription agreement with the Company topurchase 400,000 shares of the Company's common stock at a price of $2.50 pershare.  The shares will be issued pursuant to Regulation S.  The totalpayment for these shares is $1,000,000.

**SIGNATURES**

Pursuant to the requirements of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, the registrant has duly caused this report to be signed on its behalf by the undersigned hereunto duly authorized.

Dated: December 4, 2003

**GSL HOLDINGS, INC.**

/s/ Luis Chang

Luis Chang,

President
#### § 776.12 Employees traveling across State lines.

Questions are frequently asked as to whether the fact that an employee crosses State lines in connection with his employment brings him within the Act's coverage as an employee “engaged in commerce.” Typical of the employments in which such questions arise are those of traveling service men, traveling buyers, traveling construction crews, collectors, and employees of such organizations as circuses, carnivals, road shows, and orchestras. The area of coverage in such situations cannot be delimited by any exact formula, since questions of degree are necessarily involved. If the employee transports material or equipment or other persons across State lines or within a particular State as a part of an interstate movement, it is clear of course, that he is engaging in commerce.[47] And as a general rule, employees who are regularly engaged in traveling across State lines in the performance of their duties (as distinguished from merely going to and from their homes or lodgings in commuting to a work place) are engaged in commerce and covered by the Act.[48] On the other hand, it is equally plain that an employee who, in isolated or sporadic instances, happens to cross a State line in the course of his employment, which is otherwise intrastate in character, is not, for that sole reason, covered by the Act. Nor would a man who occasionally moves to another State in order to pursue an essentially local trade or occupation there become an employee “engaged in commerce” by virtue of that fact alone. Doubtful questions arising in the area between the two extremes must be resolved on the basis of the facts in each individual case.

###### Footnotes -
  776.12

[47] The employee may, however, be exempt from the overtime provisions of the Act under section 13(b)(1). See part 792 of this chapter.

[48] *Reck* v. *Zarmocay,* 264 App. Div. 520, 36 N.Y.S. 2d 394; *Colbeck* v. *Dairyland Creamery Co.,* 17 N.W. 2d 262 (S. Ct. S.D.).
* 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 April 21, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-40949 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus MARTIN TORRES-JUAREZ, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. L-03-CR-390-ALL

-------------------- Before JOLLY, JONES, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Counsel appointed to represent Martin Torres-Juarez has filed a motion for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief as required by Anders v. California , 386 U.S. 738 (1967). TorresJuarez has not filed a response. Our independent review of the brief and the record discloses no nonfrivolous issue in this direct appeal. Accordingly, the motion for leave to withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
Editorial Note on Part 117
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 117 appear by USCG-1998-3799, 63 FR 35529, June 30, 1998.

§ 117.49 Process of violations. ( a ) Complaints of alleged violations under this part are submitted to the District Commander of the Coast Guard District in which the drawbridge is located.
( b ) Penalties for violations under this part are assessed and collected under Subpart 1.07 of Part 1 of this chapter.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

REGION 4 

ATLANTAFEDERALCENTER 

61 FORSYTH STREET 

ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303-8960 

March 13,2012 

Mr. Michael Halpin 

Director 

Division of Air Resources Management 

Florida Department of Environmental Protection 

Mail Station 5500 

2600 Blair Stone Road 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-2400 

Dear Mr. Halpin: 

Enclosed is the final end-of-year report for your agency's FY 201 1 Air Pollution Control grant 

authorized by 5 105 of the Clean Air Act. This report outlines your agency's various grant commitments 

and their status. Since there were no issues and no adjustments necessary your report is now finalized. 

This letter documents the conclusion of the joint evaluation process required by 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 35.1 15 and identified as a commitment in your FY 201 1 Air Planning Agreement under 

Cross Cutting Issues. 

We appreciate the progress you made in FY 201 1 and look forward to continuing our joint efforts to 

protect and improve air quality. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (404) 562- 

9097 or Artra B. Cooper at (404) 562-9047 

Sincerely, 

Chief 

Air Toxics and Monitoring Branch 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division 

Enclosure 

Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov 

RecycledlRecyclable .Printed with Vegetable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Mlnimum 30% Poslconsumer)
Wytheville.

#### Northrop and Wickham, Trustees, *v.*City of Richmond (Richmond College Case).

June 14, 1906.

1. Street *Railways—Reduced Rates—Students of Richmond*College.— The students attending Richmond College are entitled to reduced rates of fare on the street railway operated hy the plaintiffs in error for the reasons set forth in *Northrop and Wicleham, Trustees,*y. *City of Richmond, ante*p. 335. Any discrimination between the students mentioned in that case and this would be arbitrary and capricious.

Error to a judgment of the Hustings Court of the city of Eichmond in prosecution for violation of a city ordinance. Defendants, having been found guilty, assign error.

*Affirmed.*

The opinion states the case.

*Munford,*Hunton, *Williams &*Anderson, and *A. B.*Guigon, for the plaintiffs in error.

*H. R.*Pollard, for the defendant in error.

Keith, P.,

delivered the opinion of the court.

This case is identical with that between the same parties decided at this term *{ante,*p. 335), except that this refers to stu*342dents at Richmond College, while the other has reference to-students at the Smithdeal Business College, and that in this case there is no evidence with respect to the construction placed by the parties upon the ordinance of the city of Richmond, or that the students of Richmond College have at any time enjoyed the privilege of purchasing tickets at a reduced price. There-seems to be no material difference with respect to the circumstances surrounding the parties in the two cases. If students of Smithdeal College are entitled to the privilege of purchasing-tickets at reduced rates by virtue of the ordinance of the city,, it is not easy to see why the students of Richmond College-should not enjoy the same privilege. It does not appear that the privilege was ever refused, or that it was ever demanded by the students of Richmond College; the record is wholly silent on the subject. When it was granted to the Smithdeal College-students by tlm railway company it could not have been denied to the students of Richmond College upon any reasonable-construction of the ordinance of the city which the railway company had accepted. Any discrimination between the students-of the two colleges would have been arbitrary and capricious. If by a just construction of the ordinance the one class was entitled to the privilege, and the railway company in the one case admitted and adopted that construction, there could have been no valid reason for adopting a different construction in a substantially identical case.

The judgment is affirmed.

*Affirmed..*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

*Upon Written Request, Copies Available From:*                     Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Investor Education and Advocacy, Washington, DC 20549-0213.                

*Extension:*

Regulation S-T; OMB Control No. 3235-424; SEC File No. 270-375.

                    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501*et seq.*), the Securities and Exchange Commission (“Commission”) has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved collection of information discussed below.                

Regulation S-T (17 CFR 232.10 through 232.903) sets forth the filing requirements relating to the electronic submission of documents on the Electronic Data Gathering, Analysis and Retrieval (“EDGAR”) system. Regulation S-T is assigned one burden hour for administrative convenience because it does not directly impose any information collection requirements.

An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid control number.

                    The public may view the background documentation for this information collection at the following Web site,                     *http://www.reginfo.gov.*                     Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an e-mail to:                     *Shagufta_Ahmed@omb.eop.gov;*                     and (ii) Thomas Bayer, Director/Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi Pavlik-Simon, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312 or send an e-mail to:                     *PRA_Mailbox@sec.gov.*                     Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30 days of this notice.                

 Dated: August 8, 2011.

Elizabeth M. Murphy,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2011-20414 Filed 8-10-11; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
#### § 106.100 Definitions.

Except as specifically stated in this subpart, the definitions in part 101 of this subchapter apply to this part.
USGS HomeContact USGSSearch USGS

U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2010-1178

Geophysical Data from offshore of the Gulf Islands National Seashore, Cat Island to Western Horn Island, Mississippi

----

Title Page / Contents / List of Figures / Conversion Factors and Datum / Abstract / Introduction / Data Acquisition and Processing / Data Catalog / Acknowledgments / References Cited

----

**Figure 1**. Location map of the Mississippi Gulf Islands survey areas for cruise IDs 2010-012-FA and 10CCT02. The red polygons outline two survey areas. The black box indicates the survey area that is the focus of this report. Figure 2 contains a more detailed view of this survey area.

AccessibilityFOIAPrivacyPolicies and Notices

U.S. Department of the Interior |		U.S. Geological Survey
## ZUCKERf SCOUfT 6- 

## RASENBERGER, L.L.P ATTORNEYS AT LAW 888 Seventeenth Street, NW; Washington, DC 20006-3309 Telephone [202) 298

- 8660 Fax [202) 342-0683 www.zsr law.com

MALCOLM L. BENG E

Mr. Paul Gretch Ms. Esta Rosenberg Office of International Aviation U.S
. Department of Transportation 1200 New Jersey Avenue , S.E. Washington, DC 20590 United States of America December 28 , 2009 DIRECT DI A L (202) 973- 7904 mlbenge @ zsrlaw. com



### Re: Joint Application of US Airways, Inc. and EVA Airways Corporation for Statements of Authorization (Dockets OST-2007-27352 and OST-2009-0349) Dear Mr. Gretch and Ms. Rosenberg: We have polled the air carriers on the attached service list regarding the above-referenced Joint Application
. We received no objections. Accordingly , we respectfully request expedited consideration ofthis Joint Application.

Enclosure Very truly yours,

Malcolm L. Benge Jonathon H. FogliaCERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on December 28,2009 , I caused a copy of the foregoing letter to be served by email on the parties listed below: john.allen@,faa.gov byerlyjr@state.gov esta.rosenberg@dot.gov robett.finamore@dot.gov george.wellington @, dot.gov thuy.cooper@,dot.gov sascha.vanderbellen@delta.com sametta.c.bamett@delta.com jeff.morgan@delta.com carl.nelson@aa.com hkamen@coair.com dan.weiss@coair.com jeffrey.manley@united.com anbird@fedex.com dvaughan@kelleydrye.com dfisher@kelleydrye.com
```

[Congressional Bills 110th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 521 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

110th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 521

  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 17, 2008

   Mr. Reid (for himself and Mr. McConnell) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Authorizing the taking of a photograph in the Chamber of the United 
                             States Senate.

    Resolved, That paragraph 1 of rule IV of the Rules for the 
Regulation of the Senate Wing of the United States Capitol (prohibiting 
the taking of pictures in the Senate Chamber) be temporarily suspended 
for the sole and specific purpose of permitting the Senate Photographic 
Studio to photograph the United States Senate in actual session on 
Tuesday, June 3, 2008, at the hour of 2:15 p.m.
    Sec. 2.  The Sergeant at Arms of the Senate is authorized and 
directed to make the necessary arrangements therefore, which 
arrangements shall provide for a minimum of disruption to Senate 
proceedings.
                                 <all>
```
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

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 High Speed Access Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
George E. Willett, President 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 to my knowledge:

    (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 the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.


Date:  November 12, 2002                   By /s/ George E. Willett
       -----------------                   -------------------------------------
                                           George E. Willett
                                           President and Chief Financial Officer
#### § 779.201 The place of the term “enterprise” in the Act.

The term “enterprise” is defined in section 3(r) of the Act and, wherever used in the Act, is governed by this definition. (§ 779.21(a) provides that portion of the definition of “enterprise” which is pertinent with respect to retail and service enterprises.) The term is a key in determining the applicability of the Act to these businesses. The “enterprise” is the unit for determining whether the conditions of section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act and section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, including, where applicable, the requisite dollar volume are met. The “enterprise” is also the unit for determining which employees not individually covered by the Act are entitled to the minimum wage, overtime, and equal pay benefits, and to the child labor protection, under sections 6, 7, and 12 of the Act. In general, if the “enterprise” comes within any of the categories described in section 3(s)(1) through (5) of the prior Act or section 3(s)(1) through (4) of the amended Act, all employees employed in the “enterprise” are covered by the Act and, regardless of their duties, are entitled to the Act's benefits unless a specific exemption applies.
§ 110.1a Anchorages under Ports and Waterways Safety provisions. ( a ) The anchorages listed in this section are regulated under 46 U.S.C. Chapter 700, “Ports and Waterways Safety”: ( 1 ) Section 110.155 *Port of New York.*
( 2 ) [Reserved]
( b ) [Reserved]
[CGD 3-81-1A, 47 FR 4063, Jan. 28, 1982, as amended by CGD 96-052, 62 FR 16703, Apr. 8, 1997; USCG-2018-1049, 84 FR 7813, Mar. 5, 2019]