alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 168 (Wednesday, August 30, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51585-51586]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-7243]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army

[No. USA-2006-0016]


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by 
September 29, 2006.
    Title, Associated Form and OMB Number: Disposition of Remains--
Reimbursable Basis and Request for Payment of Funeral and/or Internet 
Expense; DD Forms 2065 and 1375; OMB Number 0704-0030.
    Type of Request: Extension.
    Number of Respondents: 3200.
    Response per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 3200.
    Average Burden per Response: 20 minutes (DD 2065) and 10 minutes 
(DD 1375).
    Annual Burden Hours: 550.
    Needs and Uses: DD Form 2065 records disposition instructions and 
costs for preparation and final disposition of remains. DD Form 1375 
provides next-of-kin an instrument to apply for reimbursement of 
funeral/interment expenses. This information is used to adjudicate 
claims for reimbursement of these expenses.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to obtain or retain benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Ms. Hillary Jaffe.

[[Page 51586]]

    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Ms. Jaffe at the Office of Management and 
Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    You may also submit comments, identified by docket number and 
title, by the following method:
    <bullet> Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
    Instructions: All submissions received must include the agency 
name, docket number and title for this Federal Register document. The 
general policy for comments and other submissions from members of the 
public is not to make these submissions available for public viewing on 
the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov as they are received without 
change, including any personal identifiers or contact information.
    DoD Clearance Officer: Ms. Patricia Toppings.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Ms. Toppings at WHS/ESD/Information Management 
Division, 1777 North Kent Street, RPN, Suite 11000, Arlington, VA 
22209-2133.

    Dated: August 24, 2006.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 06-7243 Filed 8-29-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   10-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 MAR-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                         125,220
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,071,239
<ALLOWANCES>                                   350,000
<INVENTORY>                                    1,057,866
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,957,273
<PP&E>                                         28,751,874
<DEPRECIATION>                                 10,923,014
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 20,970,740
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          15,855,205
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    2,593,886
<COMMON>                                       195,135
<OTHER-SE>                                     43,076,603
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   20,970,740
<SALES>                                        13,951,725
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               13,951,725
<CGS>                                          18,113,514
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  5,655,244
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               586,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             984,064
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (11,338,869)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (11,338,869)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (11,338,869)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.73)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.73)
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1





Certification of Chief Executive Officer of


Commercial National Financial Corporation


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 on Form 10-K of Commercial National Financial Corporation (the “Corporation”) for the period ending December 31, 2009 (the “Report”), I, Gregg E. Hunter, Chief Executive Officer of the Corporation 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 results of operations of Commercial National Financial Corporation.








/s/ Gregg E. HunterGregg E. HunterChief Executive OfficerMarch 26, 2010








A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Commercial National Financial Corporation and will be retained by Commercial National Financial Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### § 73.732 Authorizations.

Authorizations issued to international broadcasting stations by the Commission will be authorizations to permit the construction or use of a particular transmitting equipment combination and related antenna systems for international broadcasting, and to permit broadcasting to zones or areas of reception specified on the instrument of authorization. The authorizations will not specify the frequencies to be used or the hours of use. Requests for frequencies and hours of use will be made by electronic filing in the International Communications Filing System (ICFS) as provided in § 73.702. Seasonal schedules, when issued pursuant to the provisions of § 73.702, will become attachments to and part of the instrument of authorization, replacing any such prior attachments.

[88 FR 21447, Apr. 10, 2023]
#### ILLINOIS CENTRAL R. CO. v. ALFORD et al.

No. 13246.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Feb. 9, 1951.

Rehearing Denied May 4, 1951.

M. C. Thompson, Monroe, La., Chas. A. Helsell, Chicago, Ill., A. B. Freyer, Shreveport, La., for appellant.

L. L. Lockard, Shreveport, La., for ap-pellees.

Before HUTCHESON, Chief Judge, and HOLMES and RUSSELL, Circuit Judges.

HOLMES, Circuit Judge.

This action is by 156 plaintiffs against defendant-appellant for maintaining a nuisance by emissions of smoke, soot, and cinders in the operation of its terminal facilities in Bossier City, La. The court below held that the nuisance was proven, and awarded damages ranging from a low of $30 to a high of $887, respectively, in the individual cases. Common sense and experience lend support to the finding below,’ that the smoke nuisance here was directly and materially contributed to by appellant’s burning of soft or bituminous coal.

We affirm the judgment appealed from upon the authority of the following decisions of the Supreme Court of Louisiana with reference to the same nuisance: Tucker v. Vicksburg S. & P. R. R. Company, 125 La. 689, 51 So. 689; McGee v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Company, 206 La. 121, 19 So.2d 21; Devoke et al. v. Yazoo & M. V. R. R. Company, 211 La. 729, 30 So.2d 816.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>           5
<LEGEND>
                    The Schedule contains summary financial 
                    information extracted from the financial
                    statements for Prudential-Bache OptiMax 
                    Futures Fund LP and is qualified in its entirety 
                    by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>

<RESTATED>          

<CIK>               0000866533
<NAME>              Prudential-Bache OptiMax Futures Fund LP
<MULTIPLIER>        1

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-START>                  Jan-1-1998

<PERIOD-END>                    Dec-31-1998

<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-Mos

<CASH>                          3,691,861

<SECURITIES>                    12,921,196

<RECEIVABLES>                   0

<ALLOWANCES>                    0

<INVENTORY>                     0

<CURRENT-ASSETS>                16,613,057

<PP&E>                          0

<DEPRECIATION>                  0

<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  16,613,057

<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           329,648

<BONDS>                         0

<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0

<PREFERRED>                     0

<COMMON>                        0

<OTHER-SE>                      16,283,409

<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    16,613,057

<SALES>                         0

<TOTAL-REVENUES>                5,493,048

<CGS>                           0

<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0

<OTHER-EXPENSES>                2,838,919

<LOSS-PROVISION>                0

<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0

<INCOME-PRETAX>                 0

<INCOME-TAX>                    0

<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0

<DISCONTINUED>                  0

<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0

<CHANGES>                       0

<NET-INCOME>                    2,654,129

<EPS-PRIMARY>                   29.85

<EPS-DILUTED>                   0

</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION OF CEO AS REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14 or 15d-14 OF
THE SECURITIES EXCHAGE ACT OF 1934, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Zap.Com Corporation;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:
    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):
   Date: November 7, 2006/s/ Avram A. GlazerAvram A. GlazerPresident and CEO
 16
**EXHIBIT 31.2**
I, Paul E. Martin, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of CC VHoldings, LLC and CC V Holdings Finance, Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain anyuntrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in lightof the circumstances under which such statements were made,not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and otherfinancial information included in this report, fairly presentin all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrants as of, and for,the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I areresponsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrants and have:
 (a) Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed underour supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrants,including their consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  (b) [Reserved];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrants’ disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of theend of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrants’ internal control over financialreporting that occurred during theregistrants’ most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrants’ fourth fiscal quarter in thecase of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrants’ internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The registrants’ other certifying officer(s) and I havedisclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the registrants’auditors and the audit committee of the registrants’ board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 (a) All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reportingwhich are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrants’ ability to record,process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrants’internal control over financial reporting.
Date: November 12, 2004 /s/ Paul E. MartinPaul E. MartinInterim Co-Chief Financial Officer(Co-Principal Financial Officer)
The State of



# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas**

August 25, 2015

N o. 04

- 14

- 00551

- CV

Pablo SOLIZ

, Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS

, Appellee

From the 79th Judicial District Court, Brooks County, Texas Trial Court No. 14

- 02

- 16542

- CV David Wellingto n Chew, Judge Presiding



### ORDER

Appellant’s motion for extension of time to file a motion for rehearing is granted. We order any motion for rehearing due September 5, 2015.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said court on this 25th day of August, 2015

.

___________________________________ Keith E. Hottle Clerk of Court
#### Elizabeth M. McLaughlin *vs.*Anna E. Dunlop, *Ex’x.*

DECEMBER 6, 1944.

Present: Flynn, C. J., Moss, Capotosto, Baker and Condon, JJ.

Per Curiam.

This case 'is before us on the defendant’s petition for a new trial on the ground that her trial in the superior court was not full, fair and impartial.

The petition is based upon general laws 1938, chapter 535, §5, which reads as follows: *“A*party ... in any action or proceeding in the superior court in which a trial has been had which was not full, fair, and impartial, may at any time within one year after verdict or decision petition *453the supreme court for a new trial; and the supreme court may, with or without terms, order a new trial in the superior court.”

The petition and its accompanying affidavit restate at length all the material allegations, facts and arguments, with one possible exception, that were in controversy and were fully presented by the defendant at the trial in the superior court. The matters complained of were proper subjects for exception and review thereon. In fact, they were presented and argued to this court upon the defendant’s exception to the trial justice’s decision in favor of the plaintiff and were thereupon reviewed and disposed of by our opinion in *McLaughlin*v. *Dunlop,*70 R. I. 155. Unless the petitioner shows something more than mere error of the trial court upon a matter which ordinarily would form the subject of an exception, relief under this section of the statute is not warranted. *Campbell*v. *Campbell,*29 R. I. 428; *Chapin*v. *Stone,*32 R. I. 311; *State*v. *Kemp,*37 R. I. 572.

But, even if we consider the petitioner’s present complaint in the light of the one allegation that may not have been presented as fully to the trial justice as to this court, our conclusion is not thereby changed. The petitioner contends, in substance and effect, that if we consider, in connection with the other relevant proven or admitted facts, an alleged erasure and substitution in the date on the copy of the promissory note as such copy is set forth in the claim relied on, it will clearly appear that plaintiff’s recovery was based on a different note from the one upon which she originally was given leave to file her claim in the probate court. It is not claimed that the note itself was altered.

From an inspection of the claim as filed there is grave question whether there was any such erasure and substitution as alleged. But, even if there were, the petitioner’s complaint would not justify, relief in the circumstances unless the change was wrongfully made after the claim had *454been filed in the probate court. There is no such evidence in this record.

*Charles R. Easton,*for petitioner Dunlop.

*George F. Treanor,*for respondent McLaughlin.

The petition is denied and dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<RESTATED>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         3,972,607
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  211,489
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    22,568
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               4,433,779
<PP&E>                                         915,423
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5,351,313
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          768,957
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       21,360
<OTHER-SE>                                     4,474,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   5,351,313
<SALES>                                        1,479,341
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,479,341
<CGS>                                          342,823
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  342,823
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,509,431
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             9,299
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,292,459)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,292,459)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,292,459)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.06)





</TABLE>
288P15

#### Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc., Plaintiff v. NeuIsys, LLC, Defendant NeuIsys, LLC, Counterclaim-Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc., Tom Buse, and Keith Mildenberger, Counterclaim-Defendants NeuIsys, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff v. Neusoft Medical System Company, Ltd., Third-Party Defendant

1. Third-Party Defs Notice of Appeal Based Upon a Constitutional Question (COA14-779)

1.

2. Third-Party Defs PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

2. Denied

3. North Carolina Association of Defense Attorneys’ Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief

3. Dismissed as moot

4. Pit and Counterclaim Defs (Neusoft Medical Systems, USA, Inc.) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

4. Denied

5. Counterclaim Defs’ (Tom Buse and Keith Mildenberger) PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

5. Denied

6. Third-Party Pit’s (Neulsys, LLC) Motion To Dismiss Appeal (of Third-Party Defendant)

6. Allowed

7. Third-Party Pit’s (Neulsys, LLC) Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

7. Dismissed as moot

8. Third-Party Pit’s (Neulsys, LLC) Conditional PDR Under N.C.G.S. § 7A-31

8. Dismissed as moot
No. 11-5768.

#### Lane *v.*Florida Parole Commission.

C. A. llth Cir. Certiorari denied.
§ 80.351 Scope. The following sections describe the carrier frequencies and general uses of radiotelegraphy and data transmission with respect to the following: ( a ) Distress, urgency, safety, call and reply.
( b ) Working.
( c ) Digital selective calling (DSC).
( d ) Narrow-band direct-printing (NB-DP).
( e ) Facsimile.
( f ) VHF-FM digital small message services (VDSMS).
[81 FR 90747, Dec. 15, 2016]