alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 228 (Tuesday, November 28, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Page 68798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 06-9425]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Southcentral Alaska Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council 
Meeting

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice informs the public that the Southcentral Alaska 
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Council will hold a public 
meeting on December 8, 2006, at 3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, 
Alaska. The public is invited to participate and to provide oral 
testimony.

DATES: The meeting will be held Friday, December 8, 2006, at 9 a.m., 
Alaska Standard Time.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter J. Probasco, Office of 
Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 3601 C Street, 
Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone (907) 786-3888. For 
questions related to subsistence management issues on National Forest 
Service lands, contact Steve Kessler, Subsistence Program Leader, 3601 
C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, Alaska 99503; telephone (907) 786-
3592.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Southcentral Alaska Subsistence Regional 
Advisory Council will meet at 3601 C Street, Suite 1030, Anchorage, 
Alaska on Friday, December 8, 2006, at 9 a.m., Alaska Standard Time, to 
establish a subcommittee with the charge of evaluating various options 
for providing a priority for the subsistence harvest of fish from the 
Federal public lands and waters of the Kenai Peninsula. This meeting is 
open to the public.
    This meeting will be held with less than the normal 15-day notice. 
The holding of this meeting of the Southcentral Regional Council on 
December 8, 2006, is in the best interest of the public because there 
is an overwhelming need to establish a subcommittee to evaluate fishery 
issues on the Kenai Peninsula prior to the Southcentral Regional 
Council's next regularly scheduled meeting in mid-March. The timing 
would allow the newly established subcommittee time to evaluate various 
proposals, options and alternatives prior to the Southcentral Regional 
Council meeting in March.

    Authority: Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
Conservation Act (ANILCA), 16 U.S.C. 3101-3126.

    Dated: November 21, 2006.
Peter J. Probasco,
Acting Chair, Federal Subsistence Board.
[FR Doc. 06-9425 Filed 11-27-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-P; 4310-55-P
### Swanson

. Bria n (OST) b&T^gS P '2JDO 0 - (b f ^ 3 From : Rowa n Kaulaela e P a [rowan3@hawaii.edu ] r ' H i !viLi-! T U r Sent : Tuesday , Januar y03 , 201 2 6:0 6 P M iSPORTAilO N To : EAS(OST ) '/.'I' T ^^pFRATiON S Subject : Answe rt o Pacifi c Wings ' Petitio n fo rReconsideratio n 

## rx i m

## 2

- P h 

## 3 0 M y nam e i s Rowa n P aan dI support Makan i Ka i t o b e th e awar drecipien t o f th e contrac t charterin g peopl e t o an dfro mKalaupapa

.
January 11, 2012 

Mr. George Smith 

President 

Flight Training International, Inc. 

3401 Quebec Street, Suite 1950 

Denver, CO 80207 

Dear Mr. Smith: 

By letter dated August 12, 2010, you petitioned the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) on 

behalf of Flight Training International, Inc. (FTI) for an exemption from § 142.53(b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) to the extent necessary to allow FTI to use 

simulator-based line oriented flight training as an alternative means of complying with the line 

familiarization requirements of that section (Regulatory Docket No. FAA-2010-0836). By letter 

dated September 28, 2010, the FAA denied your petition (Exemption No. 10146, copy 

enclosed). 

By letter dated November 24, 2010 you then petitioned the FAA on behalf of FTI for 

reconsideration of denied petition for exemption No. 10146. This letter reaffirms the FAA’s 

denial of September 28, 2010. 

We apologize for our delay in providing this response, but this was a complicated issue. After 

additional review, the FAA has found that your request should be handled via a request for 

deviation in accordance with § 142.9. You will need to contact your Training Center Program 

Manager for this purpose. 

No further action will be taken on this petition and Docket No. FAA-2010-0836 will be closed. 

Sincerely, 

/s/ 

John W. McGraw 

Acting Director, Flight Standards 

 Service 

Enclosure
Argued December 14,

decided December 26, 1911.

#### LONG *v.*HOEDLE.

[119 Pac. 484.]

Bills and Notes—Evidence—Presumptions.

■Where the execution of a note is denied, there is no presumption in favor of its regularity or the fairness of the transaction.

From Marion: George H. Burnett, Judge.

Statement by Mr. Justice McBride.

This is an action by A. W. Long and J. A. Hewitt against Charles Hoedle, George Sakuler and John Koeneke to recover on a promissory note. Defendants answered, denying the execution of the note. They introduced some testimony tending to show that the instrument was a forgery. Among other instructions, the court gave the following:

“The plaintiffs allege this was for a valuable consideration. On that point it is presumed that the promissory note was given for sufficient consideration; that is a presumption of the law. But this is a disputable presumption, and may be overcome by other evidence.”

*378The court further instructed the jury:

“It is presumed that the private transactions about this note have been fair and regular, and that is a disputable presumption which may be overcome by other evidence. These are pieces of evidence which the plaintiffs are entitled to rely upon; that the transaction of taking the note was fair and regular. But the defendants would be entitled to show that the contrary was true.”

Reversed.

For appellants there was a brief with an oral argument by *Mr. Carey F. Martin.*

For respondents there was a brief with an oral argument by *Mr. Alva 0. Condit.*

Mr. Justice McBride

delivered the opinion of the court.

Where the execution of a note is denied, there is no presumption in favor of the fairness or regularity of the transaction, and the instruction given was misleading and erroneous. *Sears*v. *Daly,*43 Or. 346 (73 Pac. 5), and cases there cited.

No error appears in other rulings made and excepted to on the trial.

The judgment is reversed, and a new trial ordered.

Reversed.

Mr. Justice Burnett took no part in this decision.
#### § 2522.900 What definitions apply to this subpart?

*Tutor* is defined as someone whose primary goal is to increase academic achievement in reading or other core subjects through planned, consistent, one-to-one or small-group sessions and activities that build on the academic strengths of students in kindergarten through 12th grade, and target their academic needs. A tutor does not include someone engaged in other academic support activities, such as mentoring and after-school program support, whose primary goal is something other than increasing academic achievement. For example, providing a safe place for children is not tutoring, even if some of the program activities focus on homework help.
1/2 

EASA EMERGENCY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 

AD No : 2007-0267-E 

Date: 08 October 2007

No person may operate an aircraft to which an Airworthiness Directive applies, except in accordance with the 

requirements of that Airworthiness Directive unless otherwise agreed with the Authority of the State of Registry.

Type Approval Holder’s Name : 

ROLLS-ROYCE PLC 

Type/Model designation(s) : 

RB211 Trent 700 Series Engines 

TCDS Number: EASA E.042 

Foreign AD: Not applicable 

Supersedure: None 

ATA 72 Engine – Intermediate Pressure (IP) Turbine Disc – Identification / 

Removal 

Manufacturer(s): Rolls-Royce plc. 

Applicability: Models RB211 Trent 768-60, 772-60, 772-60, 772B-60 and 772C-60 engines 

fitted with IP Turbine Discs, part number (P/N) FK20795 with the following serial 

numbers (S/N): CREB452, CREB216, CREB322. 

These engines are known to be installed on, but not limited to, Airbus A330 series 

aircraft. 

Reason: Three Trent 700 IP Turbine discs that exhibited signs of wear at the bore following 

failure of the bearing chamber sealing sleeve were returned to service. This was 

based on the fact that Non-Destructive Testing (NDT) did not reveal micro 

cracking on the affected disc areas. Further engineering investigation considered 

that, although no micro cracking had been found, the worn disc bore surfaces 

would have an associated fatigue penalty compared to an unaffected bore. A 

crack developing from these rubbed surfaces could potentially lead to a disc burst. 

As the described wear, present at the bores of those three discs, presents a 

potential unsafe condition, this Airworthiness Directive requires identification of the 

three affected serial numbers of IP Turbine Discs (P/N FK20795) and removal 

from service prior to attaining a certain number of cycles, as indicated. 

Effective Date: 10 October 2007 
2/2 

Compliance: The affected IP Turbine Discs, P/N FK20795, must be removed from service prior 

to attaining the following number of Cycles Since New (CSN): 

Serial Number: Removal limit in CSN: 

CREB452 7 960 

CREB216 7 930 

CREB322 7 500 

For detailed instructions refer to Rolls-Royce RB211 Propulsion System NonModification Service Bulletin RB211-72-AF734 original issue, section 3. 

Accomplishment Instructions. 

Ref. Publications: Rolls-Royce RB211 Propulsion System Non-Modification Service Bulletin RB211-

72-AF734 original issue 

Remarks : 1. If requested and appropriately substantiated, EASA can accept Alternative 

Methods of Compliance for this AD. 

2. The safety assessment has requested not to implement the full consultation 

process and an immediate publication and notification. 

3. Enquiries regarding this AD should be referred to the AD Focal Point - 

Certification Directorate, EASA. E-mail: ADs@easa.europa.eu .

4. For any question concerning the technical content of the requirements in this 

AD, please contact: 

Rolls-Royce plc. PO Box 31, Derby, DE24 8BJ, United Kingdom 

Phone:+44 (0) 1332 242424 Fax: :+44 (0) 1332 249936
§ 170.202 Transport standards and other protocols. The Secretary adopts the following transport standards: ( a ) *Direct Project.* ( 1 ) [Reserved]
( 2 ) *Standard.* ONC Applicability Statement for Secure Health Transport, Version 1.2 (incorporated by reference in § 170.299).
( b ) *Standard.* ONC XDR and XDM for Direct Messaging Specification (incorporated by reference in § 170.299).
( c ) *Standard.* ONC Transport and Security Specification (incorporated by reference in § 170.299).
( d ) *Standard.* ONC Implementation Guide for Direct Edge Protocols (incorporated by reference in § 170.299).
( e ) *Delivery notification* — ( 1 ) *Standard.* ONC Implementation Guide for Delivery Notification in Direct (incorporated by reference in § 170.299).
( 2 ) [Reserved]
[77 FR 54284, Sept. 4, 2012, as amended at 79 FR 54478, Sept. 11, 2014; 80 FR 62743, Oct. 16, 2015; 85 FR 25940, May 1, 2020]
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D17-3037

_____________________________

DAVID RODRIGUEZ LOPEZ,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Duval County.

Marianne L. Aho, Judge.

July 5, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WOLF, LEWIS, and RAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

David Rodriguez Lopez, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Steven E. Woods, 

Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee, for Appellee.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

MARIO ABREU,

Appellant

v.

PENNSYLVANIA BOARD OF 

PROBATION AND PAROLE,

Appellee

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 69 MAP 2016

Appeal from the Order of the 

Commonwealth Court at No. 127 MD 2014 

dated 6/6/16, exited 6/7/16

ORDER

PER CURIAM DECIDED: February 22, 2017

AND NOW, this 22nd day of February, the Order of the Commonwealth Court is 

hereby AFFIRMED.
BEFORE THE FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION 

IntiieMatterof ) 

) A09-15 

Proposed Fmd Audit Report on die ) Agenda Documents No. 13-19 and No. 

Cahfomia RepubUcan Party/V8 ) 13-19-A 

CERTIFICATION 

I, Shawn Woodhead Werth, recording secretary for the Federd Election Comniission 

open meeting on June 13,2013, do hereby certify that the Commission decided by a votie of 5-0 

to approve Agenda Document No. 13-19-A. 

Commissionera Hunter, McGahn n, Peteraen, Wdther, and Weintraub voted 

affirmatively for the decision. 

Attest: 

" / Date ' Shawn W 

Secretary
No. 5452.

#### J. Cyechawaich *v.*The State.

Appeal Bond.—If on an appeal from a Justice’s court to the County Court the appeal bond conforms substantially to the requirements prescribed therefor by Article 854 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, it is sufficient, •whether in literal compliance with them or not.

Appeal from the County Court of Falls. Tried below before the Hon. B. C. Stewart, County Judge.

The opinion states the case.

No brief for the appellant.

*W. L. Davidson,*Assistant Attorney General, for the State.

White, Presiding Judge.

Appellant was tried upon a complaint in a justice’s court, charging him with a simple assault, and was fined five dollars. He appealed to the county court and executed his appeal bond. On motion of the county attorney his appeal was dismissed on account of supposed defects in the bond. This ruling of the court was erroneous. The bond was in substantial, if not literal, compliance with the statutory requirements for bonds on appeals from justices’s to county *431courts. (Code Crim. Proc., art. 854; Page v. The State, 9 Texas Ct. App., 466; Watson v. The State, 20 Texas Ct. App., 382; Miller v. The State, 21 Texas Ct. App., 275; Eichman v. The State, 22 Texas Ct. App., 137.)

Opinion delivered June 1, 1887.

The judgment of the county court is reversed, and the cause is remanded that it may be tried *de novo*on its merits.

*Beversed and remanded.*

*i*
#### § 164.535 Severability.

If any provision of the HIPAA Privacy Rule to Support Reproductive Health Care Privacy is held to be invalid or unenforceable facially, or as applied to any person, plaintiff, or circumstance, it shall be construed to give maximum effect to the provision permitted by law, unless such holding shall be one of utter invalidity or unenforceability, in which case the provision shall be severable from this part and shall not affect the remainder thereof or the application of the provision to other persons not similarly situated or to other dissimilar circumstances.

[89 FR 33066, Apr. 26, 2024]
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 11


               AMERICAN NATIONAL FINANCIAL, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

              COMPUTATION OF BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (In thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                         Three months ended       Six months ended
                                               June 30,                June 30,
                                         ------------------      ------------------
                                          1999        1998        1999        1998
                                         ------      ------      ------      ------
<S>                                      <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Net earnings, basic basis                $2,646      $1,954      $5,443      $3,086
                                         ======      ======      ======      ======
Weighted average basic shares             7,150       2,901       6,606       2,918
                                         ------      ------      ------      ------
Basic earnings per share                 $  .37      $  .68      $  .82      $ 1.06
                                         ======      ======      ======      ======


Diluted net earning, basic basis          2,646       1,954       5,443       3,086
                                         ======      ======      ======      ======
Weighted average shares outstanding
  during the period, basic basis          7,150       2,901       6,606       2,918

Effect of dilutive options                   --         277          66         266
                                         ------      ------      ------      ------
Weighted average shares outstanding
  during the period, diluted basis        7,150       3,178       6,672       3,184
                                         ======      ======      ======      ======

Diluted earnings per share               $  .37      $  .62      $  .82      $  .97
                                         ======      ======      ======      ======
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-144617 and 333-141391) and Form S-3 (No. 333-156790) of First California Financial Group, Inc. of our report dated March 5, 2010, withrespect to the consolidated financial statements of First California Financial Group, Inc. and Subsidiaries included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2009. 

/s/    MOSS ADAMS LLP 

Los Angeles, California 

March 5, 2010
**UN PUBLISHED** 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 16**  **- 1713** 

DORAN BOWERS , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v.
RORY PERRY; ROBIN DAVIS; BRENT BENJAMIN; MARGARET WORKMAN; MENIS KETCHUM; ALLEN LOUGHRY; THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA; GREGORY HILTON; PETER KRAUSER; ALEXANDER WRIGHT; ALBERT MATRICCIANI; CHARLES MOYLAN; LAWRENCE RODOWSKY; ROBERT BELL; MARY ELLEN BARBERA; GLEN HARELL; LYNNE BATTAGLIA; CLAYTON GREENE; SALLY ATKINS; ROBERT MCDONALD; SHIRLEY WATTS, and; THE STATE OF MARYLAND; KATTHLEEN COX , Defendants

- Appellees

.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia , at Charleston

. Joseph R. Goodwin , District Judge. ( 2:14

- cv - 27242 )

Submitted : November 17, 2016 Decided: November 21, 2016

Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and MOTZ and TRAXLER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

.

Doran Bowers, Appellant Pro Se. Teresa Jean Lyons, HEDGES & LYONS, PLLC, Morgantown, West Virginia; Michele J. McDonald, Assistant Attorney General, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM:

Doran Bowers appeals the district court ’ s order s adopting the magistrate judge’s recommendation and dis missing with prejudice Bowers’ civil action, and denying Bowers’ Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend that judgment. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly,
we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See
Bowers v. Perry , No. 2:14

- cv - 27242 (S.D.W. Va. Sept. 28, 2015 & June 16, 2016). We deny Bowers’ motions to correct the docket, to recuse the Clerk of Court, and to amend or correct prior orders entered by the Clerk. We dispense with oral argument
be cause the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented
in the materials before th is court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 31.1



CERTIFICATION OF JOSEPH R. ROZELLE, PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER, PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(a) UNDER THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934



I, Joseph R. Rozelle, certify that:



1.   I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Dragon Acquisition 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:



(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:  January 9, 2009



| |                                
| | -------------------------------
| | /s/ Joseph R. Rozelle          
| | Joseph R. Rozelle              
| | Principal Executive Officer    
| | and Principal Financial Officer