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

[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 153 (Wednesday, August 9, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 45518]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-6785]

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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

Quachita-Ozark Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Meeting notice for the Quachita-Ozark Resource Advisory 
Committee under Section 205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community 
Self Determination Act of 2000 (Pub. L. 106-393).

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

SUMMARY: This notice is published in accordance with section 10(a)(2) 
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. Meeting notice is hereby given 
for the Quachita-Ozark Resource Advisory Committee pursuant to Section 
205 of the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self Determination Act of 
2000, Public Law 106-393. Topics to be discussed include: general 
information, including status of the proposed reauthorization of the 
Act, proposed new Title II projects, updates on current or completed 
Title II projects, renewal of committee member terms and committee 
member recruitment needs and, if appropriate, next meeting date and 
agenda.

DATES: The meeting will be held on August 22, 2006, beginning at 6 p.m. 
and ending at approximately 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Scott County Courthouse, 100 
W. First Street, Waldron, AR 71958.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Caroline Mitchell, Committee 
Coordinator, USDA, Quachita National Forest, P.O. Box 1270, Hot 
Springs, AR 71902. (501-321-5318).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. Committee 
discussion is limited to Forest Service staff, Committee members, and 
elected officials. However, persons who wish to bring matters to the 
attention of the Committee may file written statements with the 
Committee staff before or after the meeting. A public input session 
will be provided, and individuals who made written requests by August 
21, 2006, will have the opportunity to address the committee at that 
session. Individuals wishing to speak or propose agenda items must send 
their names and proposals to Bill Pell, DFO, P.O. Box 1270, Hot 
Springs, AR 71902.

    Dated: August 2, 2006.
Bill Pell,
Designated Federal officer.
[FR Doc. 06-6785 Filed 8-8-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-52-M
```
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7284

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

REGINALD JEROME STOWE,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Richard L. Voorhees,

District Judge. (CR-96-46, CA-98-238-3-V)

Submitted: February 21, 2002 Decided: March 4, 2002

Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Reginald Jerome Stowe, Appellant Pro Se. Robert Jack Higdon, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charlotte, North Carolina,

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Reginald Jerome Stowe appeals the district court’s orders

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2001)

and denying his motion for reconsideration. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s orders and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and

dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See

United States v. Stowe, Nos. CR-96-46; CA-98-238-3-V (W.D.N.C.

filed May 30, 2001, entered June 21, 2001; filed July 9, 2001,

entered July 10, 2001). 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.

DISMISSED
exv10w18w7



 





EXHIBIT 10.18.7




2007 TARGET BONUSES UNDER THE SEMCO ENERGY, INC.

AMENDED AND RESTATED SHORT-TERM INCENTIVE PLAN




          The following are the target bonuses for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2007 for each of
the named executive officers (as defined in Item 402(a)(3) of Regulation S-K) of SEMCO Energy, Inc.
(the “Company”) under the Company’s Amended and Restated Short-Term Incentive Plan, which may be
increased or decreased depending on each named executive officer’s performance and the corporate
financial results of the Company, as permitted under the Amended and Restated Short-Term Incentive
Plan:




	 	 	 
	 	 	Target Bonus That
	 	 	May be Granted Under
	 	 	Amended & Restated
	Name and Position	 	STIP for 2007
	George A. Schreiber, Jr.

President and Chief Executive Officer
	 	60% of Base Salary
	 
	 	 
	Michael V. Palmeri

Senior Vice President, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer
	 	40% of Base Salary
	 
	 	 
	Eugene N. Dubay

Senior Vice President of Operations
	 	50% of Base Salary
	 
	 	 
	Peter F. Clark

Senior Vice President and General Counsel
	 	40% of Base Salary
	 
	 	 
	Lance S. Smotherman

Senior Vice President of Human Resources and Administration
	 	40% of Base Salary
#### § 64.2502 Effect of state law or regulation.

This subpart shall not preempt any state law or state regulation that requires a governmental entity to enter into a contract or understanding with a common carrier which would restrict such governmental entity's right to obtain telecommunications service from another common carrier.
No. 11-9640.

#### Kartiganer *v.*Newman, Sheriff, Huerfano County, Colorado, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**






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 Palomar Enterprises Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September
      30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), I, Brent Fouch, Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer and
      Director 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.




PALOMAR ENTERPRISES INC.




Dated:  
      November 7 ,
      2007 /s/
      Brent Fouch


By: Brent Fouch, Treasurer, Principal Accounting Officer and Director
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 Palomar Enterprises, Inc., a
Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form  10-QSB  for  the  period ended
September  30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steve Bonenberger, Chief Executive 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  the Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial  condition  and  result of operations of the
Company.

Dated: November 15, 2004.

                                       By  /s/Steve  Bonenberger
                                       --------------------------
                                       Steve  Bonenberger,
                                       Chief Executive Officer of
                                       Palomar Enterprises, Inc.


<PAGE>
252P15

#### In the Matter of D.L.W., D.L.N.W., V.A.W.

1. Petitioner and GAL’s Motion for Temporary Stay (COA14-1341)

1. Allowed 07/22/2015

2. Petitioner and GAL’s Petition for *Writ of Supersedeas*

2. Allowed

3. Petitioner and GAL’s PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

3. Allowed
§ 32.3200 Accumulated depreciation—held for future telecommunications use. ( a ) This account shall include the accumulated depreciation associated with the investment contained in Account 2002, Property Held for Future Telecommunications Use.
( b ) This account shall be credited with amounts concurrently charged to Account 6562, Depreciation expense—property held for future telecommunications use.
[51 FR 43499, Dec. 2, 1986, as amended at 67 FR 5688, Feb. 6, 2002; 69 FR 53649, Sept. 2, 2004]
No. 11-8820.

#### Hutchinson *v.*Milyard, Warden, et al.

C. A. 10th Cir. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.1
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                                   AS ADDED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


    In connection with the Quarterly Report of Greater Atlantic Financial Corp.
(the "company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Carroll E. Amos, President and Chief Executive Officer of the company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

B.   The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the company
     as of and for the period covered by the Report.



                                    By: /s/ Carroll E. Amos
                                        -------------------
                                        Carroll E. Amos
                                        President and Chief Executive Officer


                                        Date: February 13, 2007
No. 92-8278.

#### Currie *v.*Babbitt, Secretary of the Interior.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Factor RIVERA-HERRERA, Petitioner, v. John ASHCROFT, Attorney General, Respondent.

No. 02-73015.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 15, 2004.*

Decided March 24, 2004.

*996Kevin A. Bove, Esq., Attorney at Law, Escondido, CA, for Petitioner.

Regional Counsel, Western Region Immigration & Naturalization Service, Lagu-na Niguel, CA, CAS-District Counsel, Office of the District Counsel, San Diego, CA, Ronald E. LeFevre, Chief Legal Officer, San Francisco, CA, Emily A. Radford, Esq., Blair T. O’Connor, Esq., DOJ-U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before B. FLETCHER, WARDLAW, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Factor Rivera-Herrera, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (“BIA”) summary affirmance of an Immigration Judge’s (“IJ”) order denying his motion to terminate removal proceedings and for relief under the Nicaraguan and Central American Relief Act of 1997 (“NACARA”). We have jurisdiction to review Petitioner’s contention that NACARA section 202(b) violates equal protection, and we review this constitutional claim de novo. *See Jimenez-Angeles v. Ashcroft,*291 F.3d 594, 599 (9th Cir.2002). We deny the petition.

“ ‘Line drawing’ decisions made by Congress ... in the context of immigration and naturalization must be upheld if they are rationally related to a legitimate government purpose,” *Ram v. INS,*243 F.3d 510, 517 (9th Cir.2001), and “[cjhallengers have the burden to negate ‘every conceivable basis which might support [a legislative classification] ... whether or not the basis has a foundation in the record.’ ” *Hernandez-Mezquita v. Ashcroft,*293 F.3d 1161, 1164 (9th Cir.2002) (quoting *Heller v. Doe,*509 U.S. 312, 320-21, 113 S.Ct. 2637, 125 L.Ed.2d 257 (1993)). Petitioner has not met this burden, because a rational basis exists for distinguishing groups of aliens from Mexico from those from Nicaragua or Cuba based on conditions in their home countries. *See Jimenez-Angeles,*291 F.3d at 602-03. Moreover, we have specifically held that NACARA section 203 does not violate equal protection. *See Ram,*243 F.3d at 517 (Congress’s decision to favor aliens from specific war-torn countries “stems from a rational diplomatic decision to encourage such aliens to remain in the United States.”).

Contrary to Petitioner’s contention, the BIA’s affirmance without opinion of the IJ’s decision was not improper, because the BIA lacked jurisdiction to consider the constitutional challenge to NACARA. *See Liu v. Waters,*55 F.3d 421, 426 (9th Cir. 1995).

The Clerk is directed to stay the mandate pending the resolution of *Desta v. Ashcroft,*No. 03-70477 and further order of this Court.

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           BD

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                              3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          Jan-31-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             Feb-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               Apr-30-2000
<CASH>                                     11,349,106
<RECEIVABLES>                              669,919
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                        0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                      0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                        4,163,794
<PP&E>                                     485,707
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             19,518,926
<SHORT-TERM>                               103,748
<PAYABLES>                                 1,205,489
<REPOS-SOLD>                               0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                        0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                         0
<LONG-TERM>                                165,304
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                                0
<COMMON>                                   114,763
<OTHER-SE>                                 17,596,374
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               19,518,926
<TRADING-REVENUE>                          197,675
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                       269,436
<COMMISSIONS>                              4,006,514
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>              0
<FEE-REVENUE>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                         11,516
<COMPENSATION>                             1,752,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            760,708
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                 760,708
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                               467,104
<EPS-BASIC>                                0.04
<EPS-DILUTED>                              0.04



</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 15** 
**- 7560** 

ANTONIO DAVIS ,
Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.

DEP. SARA GIRON ,
Defendant

– Appellee ,
and

RICHLAND COUNTY; SHERIFF LEON LOTT; DEP. ADRIAN THOMPSON; DEP. ADAM CORNWELL; RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF DEPARTMENT ,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Florence

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 4:12

- cv
- 03429

- RMG )

Submitted : December 15, 2015 Decided: December 18, 2015

Before GREGORY and FLOYD , Circuit Judges , and DAVIS, Senior Circuit Judge

.

Dismissed by un published per curiam opinion

.2 Antonio Davis, Appellant Pro Se. David Allan DeMasters , Joel Steve Hughes , DAVIDSON & LINDEM ANN, PA , Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.3 PER CURIAM:

Antonio Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s order
granting summary judgment to Appellee Sara Giron . This court

may exercise jurisdic tion only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (20 12 ), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders,

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (20 12 ); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v.
Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 , 545

- 46 (1949). The

order Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an
appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we
dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately prese nted in the materials before this court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
No. 11-9082.

#### Curry *v.*Blue Cross Blue Shield of South Carolina.

C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.
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 Palomar Enterprises,
Inc. (the "Company")  on  Form 10-QSB for the period ended December 31,
2005 as filed with the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven  Bonenberger,  President,  Director  and
Chief  Executive 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) 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 results of
operations of the Company.

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

                                        /s/ Steve Bonenberger
                                        -------------------------------
                                        Steve Bonenberger, Director,
                                        President and Chief Executive
                                        Officer

                                        Date:  May 10,2006
§ 24.839 Transfer of control or assignment of license. ( a ) Restrictions on Assignments and Transfers of Licenses for Frequency Blocks C and F won in closed bidding. No assignment or transfer of control of a license for frequency Block C or frequency Block F won in closed bidding pursuant to the eligibility requirements of § 24.709 will be granted unless: ( 1 ) The application for assignment or transfer of control is filed after five years from the date of the initial license grant; or
( 2 ) The proposed assignee or transferee meets the eligibility criteria set forth in § 24.709 of this part at the time the application for assignment or transfer of control is filed, or the proposed assignee or transferee holds other license(s) for frequency blocks C and F and, at the time of receipt of such license(s), met the eligibility criteria set forth in § 24.709 of this part; or
( 3 ) The application is for partial assignment of a partitioned service area to a rural telephone company pursuant to § 24.714 of this part and the proposed assignee meets the eligibility criteria set forth in § 24.709 of this part; or
( 4 ) The application is for an involuntary assignment or transfer of control to a bankruptcy trustee appointed under involuntary bankruptcy, an independent receiver appointed by a court of competent jurisdiction in a foreclosure action, or, in the event of death or disability, to a person or entity legally qualified to succeed the deceased or disabled person under the laws of the place having jurisdiction over the estate involved; provided that, the applicant requests a waiver pursuant to this paragraph; or
( 5 ) The assignment or transfer of control is pro forma; or
( 6 ) The application for assignment or transfer of control is filed on or after the date the licensee has notified the Commission pursuant to § 24.203(c) that its five-year construction requirement has been satisfied.
( b ) If the assignment or transfer of control of a license is approved, the assignee or transferee is subject to the original construction requirement of § 24.203 of this part.
[63 FR 68953, Dec. 14, 1998, as amended at 65 FR 53638, Sept. 5, 2000]
§ 10.11 WEA implementation timeline. ( a ) Notwithstanding anything in this part to the contrary, a participating CMS provider shall begin an 18 month period of development, testing and deployment of the WEA in a manner consistent with the rules in this part no later than 10 months from the date that the Federal Alert Aggregator and Alert Gateway makes the Government Interface Design specifications available.
( b ) If a Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure would generate and display WEA headers with the text “Presidential Alert” to subscribers upon receipt of a National Alert, or include the text “Presidential Alert” in a mobile device's settings menus, then by July 31, 2022, that Participating CMS Provider's network infrastructure shall either generate and display WEA headers and menus with the text “National Alert,” or no longer display those headers and menu text to the subscriber. Network infrastructure that is technically incapable of meeting this requirement, such as situations in which legacy devices or networks cannot be updated to support header display changes, are exempt from this requirement.
[78 FR 16807, Mar. 19, 2013, as amended at 86 FR 46790, Aug. 20, 2021; 87 FR 34213, June 6, 2022]