alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Cedar Lakes to Espiritu SantoBay, Texas [electronic resource]**
 
SuDoc Number:C 55.418/7:11319/

Item Number:0191-B-13 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000881237
 
1984-1985 | 1986-1988 | 1990-1991
 
May 4, 2020
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. 333-07377) pertaining to the 1995 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-53400) pertaining to the Special Purpose Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73000) pertaining to the 2001 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-73002) pertaining to the 2000 Stock Option Plan, in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-152706) pertaining to the SPAR Group, Inc. 2008 Stock Compensation Plan and in Registration Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-72998) pertaining to the 2001 Consultant Stock Purchase Plan of SPAR Group, Inc. of our report dated April 15, 2010, with respect to the December 31, 2009 and 2008 consolidated financial statements and schedule of SPAR Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31, 2009.




/s/ Rehmann Robson







Troy, Michigan


October 5, 2010
<PAGE>   1


                                   EXHIBIT 21
                                   ----------


                   SUBSIDIARIES OF NATIONAL AUTO CREDIT, INC.

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                          Percent Owned
                                                State of                by National Auto
                Corporate Name                Organization                Credit, Inc.
       -----------------------------     ---------------------      -------------------------

<S>                                           <C>                               <C>
       ARAC, Inc.(1)                          Delaware                           100%

       NAC Capital, Inc.                      Delaware                           100%

       NAC, Inc.(2)                           Delaware                           100%

</TABLE>






     All of the subsidiaries listed above are included in the consolidated
financial statements of the Company. The Company also has various subsidiaries
which, when considered in the aggregate, do not constitute a significant
subsidiary.


(1)Formerly operated under the name of Agency Rent-A-Car and its divisions,
   Altra Auto Rental, Automate Auto Rental and National Motors.

(2)NAC, Inc. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of ARAC, Inc.










                                       65
{"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":"20-2277: BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION v. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC [ERRATA], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"fcJdiQbl6o\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-20-2277-brooklyn-brewery-corporation-v-brooklyn-brew-shop-llc-errata-20-2277-errata-1-18-2022_1893848\/\">20-2277: BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION v. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC [ERRATA], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/01-18-2022-20-2277-brooklyn-brewery-corporation-v-brooklyn-brew-shop-llc-errata-20-2277-errata-1-18-2022_1893848\/embed\/#?secret=fcJdiQbl6o\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“20-2277: BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION v. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC [ERRATA], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"fcJdiQbl6o\" 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":"ERRATA Posted: BROOKLYN BREWERY CORPORATION v. BROOKLYN BREW SHOP, LLC [ERRATA](pdf) Appeal Number: 20-2277 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
§ 25.173 Results of in-orbit testing. ( a ) Space station operators must measure the co-polarized and cross-polarized performance of space station antennas through in-orbit testing and submit the measurement data to the Commission upon request.
( b ) Within 15 days after completing in-orbit testing of a space station licensed under this part, the operator must notify the Commission that such testing has been completed and certify that the space station's measured performance is consistent with the station authorization and that the space station is capable of using its assigned frequencies or inform the Commission of any discrepancy. The licensee must also indicate in the filing whether the space station has been placed in the assigned geostationary orbital location or non-geostationary orbit. If the licensee files a certification pursuant to this paragraph before the space station has been placed in its assigned orbit or orbital location, the licensee must separately notify the Commission that the space station has been placed in such orbit or orbital location within 3 days after such placement and that the station's measured performance is consistent with the station authorization.
[79 FR 8321, Feb. 12, 2014]
{"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":"17-1825: KUMAR v. IANCU [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"YEsh5XxoDK\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-1825-kumar-v-iancu-rule-36-judgment-17-1825-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/\">17-1825: KUMAR v. IANCU [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/11-07-2018-17-1825-kumar-v-iancu-rule-36-judgment-17-1825-rule_36_judgment-11-7-2018-1\/embed\/#?secret=YEsh5XxoDK\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“17-1825: KUMAR v. IANCU [RULE 36 JUDGMENT], Nonprecedential” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"YEsh5XxoDK\" 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":"Opinions\/Orders posted: KUMAR v. IANCU [RULE 36 JUDGMENT](pdf) Appeal Number: 17-1825 Origin: PTO Nonprecedential To see more opinions and orders, follow this link: Opinions and Orders."}
{"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":"Notice of Modified Access Restrictions for the National Courts Building Through June 30, 2021 - U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"3JUgoaNrXS\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-modified-access-restrictions-for-the-national-courts-building-through-june-30-2021\/\">Notice of Modified Access Restrictions for the National Courts Building Through June 30, 2021<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/cafc.uscourts.gov\/notice-of-modified-access-restrictions-for-the-national-courts-building-through-june-30-2021\/embed\/#?secret=3JUgoaNrXS\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"“Notice of Modified Access Restrictions for the National Courts Building Through June 30, 2021” — U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit\" data-secret=\"3JUgoaNrXS\" 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":"The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States Court of Federal Claims have entered a new joint order modifying public access restrictions to the National Courts Building complex in Washington, D.C.\u00a0 Effective May 24, 2021, courthouse access is now limited to court staff and litigants, witnesses, and any other […]"}
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.                  

###### Department of Transportation

###### Federal Aviation Administration

          - 14 CFR Part 71
          - [Docket No. FAA-2006-24869; Airspace Docket No. 06-ACE-4]

# AGENCY:

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

# ACTION:

 Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date.

# SUMMARY:

This document confirms the effective date of the direct final rule which revises Class E airspace at Wellington, KS.

# DATES:

*Effective Date:*                         0901 UTC, September 28, 2006.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda Mumper, Air Traffic Division, Airspace Branch, ACE-520A, DOT Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2524.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The FAA published this direct final rule with a request for comments in the                     **Federal Register**                     on June 5, 2006 (71 FR 32271). The FAA uses the direct final rulemaking procedure for a non-controversial rule where the FAA believes that there will be no adverse public comment. This direct final rule advised the public that no adverse comments were anticipated, and that unless a written adverse comment, or a written notice of intent to submit such an adverse comment, were received within the comment period, the regulation would become effective on September 28, 2006. No adverse comments were received, and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become effective on that date.                

Issued in Kansas City, MO, on July 26, 2006.

Donna R. McCord,

Acting Area Director, Western Flight Services Operations.

[FR Doc. 06-6699  Filed 8-3-06; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 128 (Monday, July 3, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 41065]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16696]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2203-007; Holt Project]


Alabama Power Company; Notice of Telephone Conference

June 27, 2000.
    On Thursday, July 13, 2000, the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission (Commission) staff will conduct a telephone conference with 
representatives of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Army 
Corps of Engineers, the Alabama Department of Conservation and Natural 
Resources, the National Marine Fisheries Service, the Alabama 
Department of Environmental Management, and Alabama Power Company to 
discuss the Application for Non-Capacity Amendment of Project License 
for the Holt Project, FERC Docket No. 2203-007. The Commission staff 
will initiate the telephone conference. The telephone conference will 
begin at 2 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (1 p.m. Central Daylight Time).
    The telephone conference will be conducted according to the 
procedures used at Commission meetings. Meeting minutes will be taken, 
which will be distributed to interested parties and placed in the 
Commission's public files for the proceeding.
    For further information, please contact Steve Kartalia at the 
Commission, 9202) 219-2942.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-16696 Filed 6-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 11-5268.

#### Listman *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
No. 11-5541.

#### Hankins *v.*United States.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### §§ 25.221-25.223 [Reserved]
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    CERTIFICATIONS 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 Annual Report of VendingData Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-KSB/A for the year ended December 31, 2002, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), we,
Steven J. Blad, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and John
R. Spina, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer 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 the Report fairly presents, in
                  all material respects, the financial condition and result of
                  operations of the Company.

By:         /s/ Steven J. Blad                         Dated:  April 23, 2003
            ----------------------------------------
            Steven J. Blad
Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer

By:         /s/ John R. Spina                          Dated:  April 23, 2003
            ----------------------------------------
            John R. Spina
Title:      Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer

         This certification is made solely for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other
purpose.
No. 11-5029.

#### Buffington *v.*Thaler, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 32.6112 Motor vehicle expense. ( a ) This account shall include costs of fuel, lubrications, license and inspection fees, washing, repainting, and minor accessories. Also included are the costs of personnel whose principal job is operating motor vehicles, such as chauffeurs and shuttle bus drivers. The costs of users of motor vehicles whose principal job is not the operation of motor vehicles shall be charged to accounts appropriate for the activities performed.
( b ) Credits shall be made to this account for amounts transferred to Construction and/or to other Plant Specific Operations Expense accounts. These amounts shall be computed on the basis of direct labor hours.
[51 FR 43499, Dec. 2, 1986, as amended at 67 FR 5695, Feb. 6, 2002]
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 99-6916

DENNIS RAY GRAVES, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RAY W. GRUBBS, Judge, Defendant - Appellee.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-99-MC-54-7) Submitted: September 28, 1999 Decided: October 5, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dennis Ray Graves, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).* Although the district court’s order is marked as “filed” on June 17, 1999, the district court’s records show that it was entered on the docket sheet on June 21, 1999. Pursuant to Rules 58 and 79(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is the date that the order was entered on the docket sheet that we take as the effective date of the district court’s decision. See Wilson v. Murray, 806 F.2d 1232, 1234-35 (4th Cir. 1986). 2 PER CURIAM:Dennis Ray Graves appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his “motion for review of state court decision with request for injunction order or other.” We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we grant Graves’ motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Graves v. Grubbs , No. CA-99-MC-54-7 (W.D. Va. June 21, 1999). * We further construe Graves’ letter of August 23, 1999, as a motion to stay state proceedings pending this appeal and deny such motion as moot. To the extent that Graves seeks to have this Court direct an action or outcome in state court, federal courts have no general power to compel action by state officials. See Davis v. Lansing , 851 F.2d 72, 74 (2d Cir. 1988); Gurley v. Superior Court of Mecklenburg County , 411 F.2d 586, 587 (4th Cir. 1969). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions3 are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED