alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
§ 42.20-35 Correction for position of deck line. ( a ) Where the actual depth to the upper edge of the deck line is greater or less than *D,* the difference between the depths shall be added to or deducted from the freeboard.
[CGFR 68-60, 33 FR 10065, July 12, 1968]
EXHIBIT 99.3

                            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 Annual Report of Zila, Inc.(the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended July 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on November 13, 2002, as amended by this Form 10-K/A filed
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Douglas D. Burkett, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxly Act of 2002, that to the best of my
knowledge:

     (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 the Company.

/s/ Douglas D. Burkett  Ph.D.
-----------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
November 29, 2002

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not be deemed filed by the Company for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### John Fay and another, *Respondents, v.*John T. Lynch, *Appellant, Impleaded, etc.*

—Judgment affirmed. Opinion by

Daniels, J.
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 this Yearly Report of Smartdata Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending September 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Burke Priest, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify to the best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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.   /s/ Burke Priest Burke Priest Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  February 19, 2010
#### The State ex rel. City of Elyria, Appellee, *v.*Industrial Commission of Ohio, Appellee, et al.; Witherell, Appellant.

[Cite as *State ex rel Elyria v. Indus. Comm.*(1998), 84 Ohio St.3d'247.]

(No. 98-157

Submitted October 12, 1998

Decided December 30, 1998.)

*John L. Goodman,*for appellee city of Elyria.

*248
      *Shapiro, Kendis & Associates Co., L.P.A.,*and *Rachel B. Jaffy,*for appellant.

The judgment of the court of appeals is reversed, and the order of the Industrial Commission is reinstated.

Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney and Pfeifer, JJ., concur.

Moyer, C.J., Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., dissent.

Lundberg Stratton, J.,

dissenting. Because I would affirm the judgment of the court of appeals and return the case to the Industrial Commission for further consideration, I respectfully dissent.

Moyer, C.J., and Cook, J., concur in the foregoing dissenting opinion.
EXHIBIT 23.1

                          Independent Auditors' Consent

The Board of Directors
FirstCity Financial Corporation:


              We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 and S-3 of FirstCity Financial Corporation of our report
dated February 14, 1997, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
FirstCity Financial Corporation and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1996 and
1995, and the related consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity,
and cash flows for each of the years in the two-year period ended December 31,
1996, which report appears in the December 31, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K/A
No. 3 of FirstCity Financial Corporation.



                                                        KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Fort Worth, Texas
May 27, 1997
§ 502.210 Prehearing statements. ( a ) Unless a waiver is granted by the presiding officer, it is the duty of all parties to a proceeding to prepare a statement or statements at a time and in the manner to be established by the presiding officer provided that there has been reasonable opportunity for discovery. To the extent possible, joint statements should be prepared.
( b ) The prehearing statement must state the name of the party or parties on whose behalf it is presented and briefly set forth the following matters, unless otherwise ordered by the presiding officer: ( 1 ) Issues involved in the proceeding.
( 2 ) Facts stipulated pursuant to the procedures together with a statement that the party or parties have communicated or conferred in a good faith effort to reach stipulation to the fullest extent possible.
( 3 ) Facts in dispute.
( 4 ) Witnesses and exhibits by which disputed facts will be litigated.
( 5 ) A brief statement of applicable law.
( 6 ) The conclusion to be drawn.
( 7 ) Suggested time and location of hearing and estimated time required for presentation of the party's or parties' case.
( 8 ) Any appropriate comments, suggestions, or information which might assist the parties in preparing for the hearing or otherwise aid in the disposition of the proceeding.
( c ) The presiding officer may, for good cause shown, permit a party to introduce facts or argue points of law outside the scope of the facts and law outlined in the prehearing statement. Failure to file a prehearing statement, unless waiver has been granted by the presiding officer, may result in dismissal of a party from the proceeding, dismissal of a complaint, judgment against respondents, or imposition of such other sanctions as may be appropriate under the circumstances.
( d ) Following the submission of prehearing statements, the presiding officer may, upon motion or otherwise, convene a prehearing conference for the purpose of further narrowing issues and limiting the scope of the hearing if, in his or her opinion, the prehearing statements indicate lack of dispute of material fact not previously acknowledged by the parties or lack of legitimate need for cross-examination and is authorized to issue appropriate orders consistent with the purposes stated in this section. [Rule 210.]
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 1 of 9 Pg ID 1
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 2 of 9 Pg ID 2
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 3 of 9 Pg ID 3
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 4 of 9 Pg ID 4
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 5 of 9 Pg ID 5
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 6 of 9 Pg ID 6
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 7 of 9 Pg ID 7
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 8 of 9 Pg ID 8
2:15-cr-20382-GER-EAS Doc # 1 Filed 06/23/15 Pg 9 of 9 Pg ID 9
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Thursday, March 23, 1995 (49), Para 49.20 Deletions of Sponsors from Public Bills and Resolutions]
[Page 481]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.49.20  deletions of sponsors from public bills and resolutions

  Under clause 4 of rule XXII, sponsors were deleted from public bills 
and resolutions as follows:

       H.R. 26: Mr. Chrysler.
       H.R. 209: Mr. Chrysler.
```
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 117 (Tuesday, June 19, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 33645]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2992]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. FAA-2007-27677; Airspace Docket No. 07-ACE-2]


Modification of Class E Airspace; Manhattan, KS

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 D and Class E airspace at Manhattan, KS.

DATES: Effective Date: 0901 UTC, July 5, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Grant Nichols, System Support, DOT 
Regional Headquarters Building, Federal Aviation Administration, 901 
Locust, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone: (816) 329-2522.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA published this direct final rule 
with a request for comments in the Federal Register on May 16, 2007 (72 
FR 27413). 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 July 5, 2007. No adverse comments were received, 
and thus this notice confirms that this direct final rule will become 
effective on that date. Additionally the name is changed to Manhattan 
Regional Airport.

    Issued in Fort Worth, Texas on June 4, 2007.
Walter Tweedy,
Manager, System Support Group, ATO Central Service Area.
[FR Doc. 07-2992 Filed 6-18-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
§ 171.095 Machinery space bulkhead. ( a ) This section applies to each vessel of 100 gross tons or more.
( b ) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a vessel required to have Type I or II subdivision must have enough main transverse watertight bulkheads to separate the machinery space from the remainder of the vessel. All portions of these bulkheads must be watertight below the bulkhead deck.
( c ) Compliance with paragraph (b) of this section is not required if the vessel has sufficient air tanks or other internal buoyancy to maintain the vessel afloat while in the full load condition when all compartments and all other tanks are flooded. If foam is used to comply with this paragraph, it must be installed in accordance with the requirements in § 170.245 of this subchapter.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828191
<NAME> 88B
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                         110,641
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   71,128
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               181,769
<PP&E>                                       7,131,466
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,978,933
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,334,302
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           17,477
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,316,825
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,334,302
<SALES>                                        578,573
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               586,532
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,075,163
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (488,631)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (488,631)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (488,631)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (54.03)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
#### § 401.214 xxx

###### Cross Reference

Link to an amendment published at 89 FR 76348, Sept. 17, 2024.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                       1,542,583
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          71,034
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             4,500,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 18,458,138
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                     81,680,763
<ALLOWANCE>                                  1,167,989
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             109,477,283
<DEPOSITS>                                  88,048,982
<SHORT-TERM>                                11,801,633
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                            260,616
<LONG-TERM>                                  1,085,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    10,871,211
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,706,617)
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             109,477,283
<INTEREST-LOAN>                              3,053,930
<INTEREST-INVEST>                              542,970
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                37,830
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                             3,634,730
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           1,901,388
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           2,230,067
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                        1,404,663
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  323,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                              1,587,959
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (320,492)
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   (320,492)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (320,492)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.27)
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    2.67
<LOANS-NON>                                          0
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             (852,000)
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                    7,011
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                          (1,167,989)
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                       (1,167,989)
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0


</TABLE>
Argued and submitted August 31,

affirmed October 25, 1995

#### STATE OF OREGON, *Respondent, v.*PHILLIP JOHN SPRANG, III, *Appellant.*

(93050884; CA A83827)

904 P2d 1092

Eric Johansen, Deputy Public Defender, argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief was Sally L. Avera, Public Defender.

Timothy A. Sylwester, Assistant Attorney General, argued the cause for respondent. On the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, and Stephanie S. Andrus, Assistant Attorney General.

Before Riggs, Presiding Judge, and Landau and Leeson, Judges.

LEESON, J.

*420LEESON, J.

Defendant, a building contractor, was convicted on three counts of aggravated theft in the first degree, ORS 164.057, for misappropriating money he had received to perform work on the residences of three victims. As part of his sentence, the trial court ordered that he make restitution to the victims. ORS 137.106. Defendant assigns error to that ruling, claiming that a preconviction discharge in bankruptcy of his civil debt to the victims bars the restitution order.

In *State v. Davis,*116 Or App 607, 610, 843 P2d 460 (1992), we applied *Kelly v. Robinson,*479 US 36, 50, 107 S Ct 353, 93 L Ed 2d 216 (1986), to hold that a chapter 7 discharge in bankruptcy does not discharge the obligation to make restitution that is imposed as part of a criminal sentence.1 It is not relevant whether the discharge in bankruptcy occurred after the restitution order, as in *Kelly,*or before the restitution order, as in *Davis. See State v. Moriarty,*87 Or App 465, 470, 742 P2d 704, *rev den*304 Or 547 (1987) (statute does not require that civil damages be recoverable at the time restitution is imposed).

Affirmed.

1

 Defendant does not specify the chapter under which he filed for bankruptcy. In Kelly, the United States Supreme Court held that restitution ordered by a state criminal court falls within the exceptions to chapter 7 discharge specified at 11 USC § 523(a)(7). 479 US at 53. Subsequently, the Criminal Victims Protection Act of 1990, Pub L 101-581, 104 Stat 2865, prevented the discharge of a restitution order under chapter 13 of the bankruptcy code. 11 USC § 1328(a).
```

[Journal of the House of Representatives, 1995]
[Monday, April 3, 1995 (54), Para 54.24 Adjournment]
[Page 526]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]

para.54.24  adjournment

  On motion of Mr. ORTIZ, at 8 o'clock and 39 minutes p.m., the House 
adjourned.
```
#### Margaret Bussy, *Respondent, v.*Patrick Lambert, *Executor, etc., Appellant.*

— J udgment affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.
MAR 0 2 1999

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD FROM: Kathi Epping, EE-43 SUBJECT: Phone call with Tony Dell'arciprete Electrical Engineer for GSA regarding

distribution transformer definition [Docket Numbers EE-TP-98-550]

On March 1 , 1999, I spoke with Tony Dell'arciprete, Project Engineer who works on Electrical Design and Construction Projects for the General Services Administration (GSA), concerning his interpretation of the definition of the term "distribution transformer" as it pertains to low voltage (600 volts and below) transformers. Tony Dell'arciprete, an Electrical Engineer, stated that he believes low voltage transformers are distribution transformers. He sited ANSI/IEEE Standard 241, also referred to as "the Gray Book", which defines low voltage transformers as "indoor distribution transformers." Mr. Dell'arciprete also stated that he considered a 480 volt primary and a 120/208 volt secondary to be a distribution level voltage. In addition, he indicated that excluding low voltage transformers by calling them "general purpose transformers" or "specialty transformers" is a "play on words," and they are still distribution transformers. 

# ^(-o El MAR U 2 1999

MEMORANDUM FORTHE RECORD FROM: Kathi Epping, EE-43 SUBJECT: Phone call with Tony Dell'arciprete Electrical Engineer for GSAregarding distribution transformer definition [Docket Numbers EE-TP-98-550]

OnMarch 1, 1999, I spoke with Tony Dell'arciprete, Project Engineer who works onElectrical Design and Construction Projects for the General Services Administration (GSA), concerning his ;' interpretation ofthe definition ofthe term "distribution transformer" as itpertains to low voltage (600 volts and below) transformers. TonyDell'arciprete, an Electrical Engineer, stated that he believes low voltage transformers are distribution transformers. He sited ANSI/IEEE Standard 241, also referred to as "the Gray Book", which defines low voltage transformers as "indoor distribution transformers." Mr. Dell'arciprete also stated that he considered a 480 voltprimary and a 1201208 volt secondary to be a distribution level voltage. In addition, he indicatedthat excluding low voltage transformers by calling them "general purpose transformers" or "specialty transformers" is a "play on words," and they are still distribution transformers.
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

OF TEXAS

NO. WR-40,661-40

IN RE ELIGAH DARNELL, JR., Relator

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF MANDAMUS

CAUSE NO. C-2-W011758-0333956-E IN THE 432ND DISTRICT COURT

FROM TARRANT COUNTY

Per curiam.

O R D E R

Relator has filed a motion for leave to file an application for a writ of mandamus under this

Court’s original jurisdiction. He contends that he filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in

Tarrant County and his application has not been properly forwarded to this Court.

Respondent, the District Clerk of Tarrant County, shall forward Relator’s habeas application

to this Court, respond that Relator has not filed a habeas application in Tarrant County, or forward

a copy of an order designating issues together with correspondence documenting the date the State

received Relator’s habeas application, or forward a copy of an order establishing new deadlines in

accordance with this Court's emergency orders regarding the COVID-19 State of Disaster. See TEX.

CODE CRIM. PROC. art. 11.07, § 3(c)and (d); TEX.R.APP.P.73.4(b)(5);First Emergency Order
2

Regarding the Covid-19 State of Disaster, No. 20-9042 (Tex. Mar. 13, 2020); No. 20-007 (Tex.

Crim. App. Mar. 13, 2020); Third Emergency Order Regarding the Covid-19 Disaster, No. 20-9044

(Tex. Mar. 19, 2020); No. 20-008 (Tex. Crim. App. Mar. 19, 2020). This motion for leave to file

will be held. Respondent shall comply with this order within thirty days from the date of this order.

Filed: October 28, 2020

Do not publish
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 115 (Friday, June 15, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 33242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-2912]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5125-N-24]


Federal Property Suitable as Facilities To Assist the Homeless

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and 
Development, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice identifies unutilized, underutilized, excess, and 
surplus Federal property reviewed by HUD for suitability for possible 
use to assist the homeless.

DATES: Effective Date: June 15, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Ezzell, Department of Housing 
and Urban Development, Room 7262, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, 
DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-1234; TTY number for the hearing- and 
speech-impaired (202) 708-2565, (these telephone numbers are not toll-
free), or call the toll-free Title V information line at 1-800-927-
7588.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with the December 12, 1988 
court order in National Coalition for the Homeless v. Veterans 
Administration, No. 88-2503-OG (D.D.C.), HUD publishes a Notice, on a 
weekly basis, identifying unutilized, underutilized, excess and surplus 
Federal buildings and real property that HUD has reviewed for 
suitability for use to assist the homeless. Today's Notice is for the 
purpose of announcing that no additional properties have been 
determined suitable or unsuitable this week.

    Dated: June 7, 2007.
Mark R. Johnston,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Special Needs.
[FR Doc. 07-2912 Filed 6-14-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-M