alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 15 (Monday, January 24, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1623]



[[Page 3760]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Fiscal Service


Surety Companies Acceptable on Federal Bonds: Suretec Insurance 
Company

AGENCY:  Financial Management Service, Fiscal Service, Department of 
the Treasury.

ACTION:  Notice.

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

SUMMARY:  This is Supplement No. 11 to the Treasury Department Circular 
570; 1999 Revision, published July 1, 1999, at 64 FR 35864.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Surety Bond Branch at (202) 874-7102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  A Certificate of Authority as an acceptable 
surety on Federal bonds is hereby issued to the following Company under 
31 U.S.C. 9304 to 9308. Federal bond-approving officers should annotate 
their reference copies of the Treasury Circular 570, 1999 Revision, on 
page 35889 to reflect this addition: Suretec Insurance Company. 
Business address: 10000 Memorial Drive, Suite 330, Houston, TX 77024. 
Phone: (713) 812-0800. Underwriting limitation b/: $307,000. Surety 
licenses c/: TX. Incorporated in: Texas.
    Certificates of Authority expire on June 30 each year, unless 
revoked prior to that date. The Certificates are subject to subsequent 
annual renewal as long as the companies remain qualified (31 CFR Part 
223). A list of qualified companies is published annually as of July 1 
in Treasury Department Circular 570, with details as to underwriting 
limitations, areas in which licensed to transact surety business and 
other information.
    The Circular may be viewed and downloaded through the Internet at 
http:/www.fms.treas.gov/c570/index.html. A hard copy may be purchased 
from the Government Printing Office (GPO) Subscription Service, 
Washington, DC, Telephone (202) 512-1800. When ordering the Circular 
from GPO, use the following stock number: 048000-00527-6.
    Questions concerning this Notice may be directed to the U.S. 
Department of the Treasury, Financial Management Service, Financial 
Accounting and Services Division, Surety Bond Branch, 3700 East-West 
Highway, Room 6A04, Hyattsville, MD 20782.

    Dated: January 12, 2000.
Wanda J. Rogers,
Director, Financial Accounting and Services Division, Financial 
Management Service.
[FR Doc. 00-1623 Filed 1-21-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-35-M
## 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

9-17-1996 

# F o w le r v . U S P a r ole C omm

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al :

D ock e t 95-5226

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. I t h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al R e posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du

. 

## R e c omme nde d C it a t ion

" F o w le r v . U S P a r o le C omm " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s

. P a pe r 67. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w
. v i l l a no v a
. e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/67

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 95-5226

KEVIN FOWLER,

Appellant

v.

UNITED STATES PAROLE COMMISSION,

Appellee.

APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT C OURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY (D.C. Civ. No. 95-cv-00754) District Judge: Honorable Clarkson S. Fi sher

Argued: February 8, 1996 Before: BECKER, ROTH and McKEE, Circuit Ju dges (Filed September 4, 1996)

ORDER AMENDING OPINION FILED SEPTEMBER 4, 1996

Upon reviewing the submission of counsel for a ppellee, United States Parole Commission, it is hereby order ed that the opinion filed in this case on September 4, 1996, be amended as follows: 1. The first sentence of the opinion on page 2 which reads "Defendant-appellant Kevin Fowler appeals from an o rder of the United States District Court for the District of Ne w Jersey denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2255." is to be deleted and replaced with the follo wing: "Defendant-appellant Kevin Fowler appeals from an o rder of the United States District Court for the District of Ne w Jersey denying his petition for habeas corpus relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241."; 2. The first sentence of the last paragraph of page 3 of the

### opinion which reads "We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§§ 2255 and 1291." is to be deleted and replaced wi th the following: "We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S .C. §§ 2241 and 1291." IT IS SO ORDERED.

By the Court:

/s/ Theodore A. Mc Kee McKee, Circuit Jud ge

DATED: September 17, 1996
081A14

#### State v. Dominque Javon Perry

Special Order
#### § 101.149 [Reserved]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7686

ROBERT LEE BROCK, a/k/a Two Souls Walker,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RAYMOND ROBERTSON, District Attorney,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Rebecca B. Smith, District Judge.

(CA-95-891-2)

Submitted: February 7, 1996 Decided: February 26, 1996

Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Robert Lee Brock, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. Brock v. Robertson, No. CA-95-891-2 (E.D. Va. Sept. 29,

1995). We dispense with oral 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
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

    We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form
10-K) of Heartstream, Inc. of our report dated January 22, 1997, included in the
1996 Annual Report to Stockholders of Heartstream, Inc.

    We also consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement (Form S-8) pertaining to the 1993 Employee and Consultant Stock Plan,
1995 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, and 1995 Director Option Plan of Heartstream,
Inc. of our report dated January 22, 1997, with respect to the financial
statements incorporated herein by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of
Heartstream, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.

                                                           /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

Seattle, Washington
March 25, 1997

                                       20
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2021-1473: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc. - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"iy4Nj0PA1C\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1473-intuitive-surgical-operations-inc-v-auris-health-inc-audio-uploaded\/\">2021-1473: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/03-11-2022-2021-1473-intuitive-surgical-operations-inc-v-auris-health-inc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=iy4Nj0PA1C\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2021-1473: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"iy4Nj0PA1C\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Intuitive Surgical Operations, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc. (mp3) Appeal Number: 2021-1473 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
CERTIFICATIONS


I, Jeffrey R. Cramer, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this Form 10-Q of Anacomp, Inc.;

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

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

4.   The  registrant's  other  certifying  officer(s) and I are  responsible for
     establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
     in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

     (a)  Designed  such  disclosure  controls  and  procedures,  or caused such
          disclosure   controls  and   procedures  to  be  designed   under  our
          supervision,  to ensure  that  material  information  relating  to the
          registrant,  including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to
          us by others within those entities,  particularly during the period in
          which this report is being prepared;

     (b)  Evaluated the  effectiveness of the registrant's  disclosure  controls
          and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions  about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     (c)  Disclosed  in this  report  any  change in the  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
          most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's  fourth fiscal quarter in
          the case of an annual  report)  that has  materially  affected,  or is
          reasonably  likely to materially  affect,  the  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting; and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on
     our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to
     the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board
     of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant  deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation  of internal  control  over  financial  reporting  which are
          reasonably  likely to  adversely  affect the  registrant's  ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material,  that involves management or other
          employees who have a  significant  role in the  registrant's  internal
          control over financial reporting.



Date: August 12, 2003



/s/Jeffrey R. Cramer
__________________________
Jeffrey R. Cramer
Chief Executive Officer
No. 11-5091.

#### Berry *v.*West Virginia.

Sup. Ct. App. W. Va. Certiorari denied.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

October 26, 2020

No. 04

- 20

- 00429

- CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Y.Z., N.A.Z., J.F.Z., AND V.V.Z., CHILDREN

From the County Court at Law

, Val Verde County, Texas

Trial Court No. 3814CCL Honorable Sergio J. Gonzalez , Judge Pr esiding



### O R D E R

This is an accelerated appeal of the trial court’s order terminating the appellant’s parental rights. The appellant’s brief was originally due to be filed on October 12, 2020.

By order dated October 12, 2020, appellant’s first motion for extension of time was granted, extending the deadline to file the brief to October 23, 2020. Because the disposition of this appeal is governed by the standards set forth in Rule 6.2 of the Texas Rules of Judicial Administration our order noted this appeal is required to be brought to final disposition within 180 days of the date the notice of appeal is filed. T EX

. R. J UD

. A DMIN

. 6.2. Our order further stated, “Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for

extensions of time will be disfavored.”

On October 23, 2 020, appellant’s attorney filed a second motion for extension of time requesting an additional three

- day extension. The motion is GRANTED. Appellant’s brief must be filed no later than October 26, 2020. Given the time constraints governing the disposition of this appeal, further requests for extensions of time will be disfavored

.

_________________________________ Beth Watkins , Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 26th day of October, 2020

.___________________________________ M ichael A. C ruz
, Clerk of Court
* 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. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-40588 Conference Calendar

KENNETH D. FORD, Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus HARRY E. KINKER, II, Assistant Warden, Coffield Unit, ET AL., Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas USDC No. 6:96-CV-622

- - - - - - - - - - February 11, 1998 Before SMITH, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Kenneth D. Ford, Texas state prisoner #588298, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his civil rights complaint as frivolous. His claim of purported violations of his constitutional rights in connection with a prison disciplinary proceeding is premature under Heck v. Humphrey , 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). See Edwards v. Balisok , 117 S. Ct. 1584, 1589No. 97-40588 -2- (1997). The district court therefore did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the claim as frivolous. Ford’s appeal is without arguable merit and is thus frivolous. Because the appeal is frivolous, it is DISMISSED.
See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
APPEAL DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                             7
<MULTIPLIER>                      1,000
       
<S>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>               SEP-30-1995
<DEBT-HELD-FOR-SALE>            781,259
<DEBT-CARRYING-VALUE>         1,184,634
<DEBT-MARKET-VALUE>           1,206,446
<EQUITIES>                        5,643
<MORTGAGE>                            0
<REAL-ESTATE>                         0
<TOTAL-INVEST>                2,012,110
<CASH>                           16,708
<RECOVER-REINSURE>                    0
<DEFERRED-ACQUISITION>          155,047
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                2,368,137
<POLICY-LOSSES>               2,209,756
<UNEARNED-PREMIUMS>                   0
<POLICY-OTHER>                        0
<POLICY-HOLDER-FUNDS>             4,965
<NOTES-PAYABLE>                       0
<COMMON>                         12,897
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<OTHER-SE>                      124,451
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  2,368,137
<PREMIUMS>                        6,554
<INVESTMENT-INCOME>             114,724
<INVESTMENT-GAINS>                (993)
<OTHER-INCOME>                      683
<BENEFITS>                       88,588
<UNDERWRITING-AMORTIZATION>       8,085
<UNDERWRITING-OTHER>              7,785
<INCOME-PRETAX>                  16,510
<INCOME-TAX>                      5,617
<INCOME-CONTINUING>              10,893
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                       0
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                     10,893
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                      1.05
<RESERVE-OPEN>                        0
<PROVISION-CURRENT>                   0
<PROVISION-PRIOR>                     0
<PAYMENTS-CURRENT>                    0
<PAYMENTS-PRIOR>                      0
<RESERVE-CLOSE>                       0
<CUMULATIVE-DEFICIENCY>               0
        

</TABLE>
{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","provider_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov","author_name":"25005pwpadmin","author_url":"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/author\/25005pwpadmin\/","title":"2018-1124: Broadsoft Inc. v. CallWave Communications LLC - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"586XDzE8rU\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-2018-1124-broadsoft-inc-v-callwave-communications-llc-audio-uploaded\/\">2018-1124: Broadsoft Inc. v. CallWave Communications LLC<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/10-04-2018-2018-1124-broadsoft-inc-v-callwave-communications-llc-audio-uploaded\/embed\/#?secret=586XDzE8rU\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“2018-1124: Broadsoft Inc. v. CallWave Communications LLC” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"586XDzE8rU\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n<\/script>\n","description":"Oral argument audio posted: Broadsoft Inc. v. CallWave Communications LLC (mp3) Appeal Number: 2018-1124 To listen to more oral argument recordings, follow this link: Listen To Oral Arguments."}
# Comments on: 19-1738: CHRISTY, INC. v. US [ERRATA], Nonprecedential
#### § 109-1.5148 Personal property management reports.

Annual personal property reports as required by 41 CFR 102 35.25 and internal DOE personal property reports must be submitted to the Office of Management at a date determined by the Property Executive.
#### § 51-10.151 Program accessibility: New construction and alterations.

Each building or part of a building that is constructed or altered by, on behalf of, or for the use of the agency shall be designed, constructed, or altered so as to be readily accessible to and usable by handicapped persons. The definitions, requirements, and standards of the Architectural Barriers Act (42 U.S.C. 4151-4157), as established in 41 CFR 101-19.600 to 101-19.607, apply to buildings covered by this section.
No. 11-8085.

#### Simmons *v.*Epps, Commissioner, Mississippi Department of Corrections.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.