alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 43 (Tuesday, March 6, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 9931]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3874]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Institute of Standards and Technology


Manufacturing Extension Partnership National Advisory Board

AGENCY: National Institute of Standards and Technology, Department of 
Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. app. 
2, notice is hereby given that the Manufacturing Extension Partnership 
National Advisory Board (MEPNAB), National Institute of Standards and 
Technology (NIST), will meet Wednesday, March 21, 2007, from 9 a.m. to 
4:30 p.m. The MEPNAB is composed of six members appointed by the 
Director of NIST who were selected for their expertise in the area of 
industrial extension and their work on behalf of smaller manufacturers. 
The Board was established to fill a need for outside input on MEP. MEP 
is a unique program consisting of centers across the United States and 
Puerto Rico, with partnerships at the State, Federal, and local levels. 
The Board works closely with MEP to provide input and advice on MEP's 
programs, plans, and policies. The purpose of this meeting is to 
provide the board with the latest program developments including NIST 
Update, MEP Overview, presentations on MEP Partnerships and Program 
Evaluation. The agenda may change to accommodate Board business.

DATES: The meeting will convene March 21, 2007 at 9 a.m. and will 
adjourn at 4:30 p.m. on March 21, 2007.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Atrium Court Hotel, 3 
Research Court, Rockville, Maryland 20850. Anyone wishing to attend 
this meeting should contact NIST MEP by March 14, 2007. Please submit 
your name, time of arrival, e-mail address and phone number to Susan 
Hayduk no later than Monday, March 19, 2007. Ms. Hayduk's e-mail 
address is <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#deadabadbfb0f0b6bfa7baabb59eb0b7adaaf0b9b1a8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790a0c0a1817571118001d0c123917100a0d571e160f">[email protected]</span></a> and her phone number is (301) 975-
5614.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karen Lellock, Manufacturing Extension 
Partnership, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 
Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-4800, telephone number (301) 975-4269.

    Dated: March 1, 2007.
James E. Hill,
Acting Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. E7-3874 Filed 3-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-13-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                  EXHIBIT 21

                                 SUBSIDIARIES

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                             STATE OR COUNTRY     PERCENTAGE
COMPANY                                      OF INCORPORATION     OWNED
-------------------------------------------  -------------------- --------------
<S>                                          <C>                  <C>
Research in Acoustics, Inc..................       New York             100%
IAC Realty Corporation......................       New York             100%
IAC Development Corporation.................       New York             100%
Industrial Acoustics Company, Ltd...........        England             100%
Intra-Acoustics Company, Ltd................        Canada              100%
Industrial Acoustics Company, S.C. Inc. ....    South Carolina          100%
</TABLE>
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHNNY PAUL COLLINS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-1516 DFL GGH P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, Warden, et al.,

Respondents. ORDER

 /

Noticed for hearing November 10, 2005, is petitioner’s motion to stay and abey

filed September 3, 2005. On September 15, 2005, respondent filed an opposition to this motion. 

Respondent argues that the motion should be denied because claims raised in the amended

petition, including the unexhausted claim, are barred by the statute of limitations.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that on or before November 1, 2005, petitioner shall

file a reply to respondent’s opposition, addressing the argument that the motion to stay and abey

should be denied because claims in the amended petition, including the unexhausted claim, are

barred by the statute of limitations.

DATED: 10/6/05 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows

 

 GREGORY G. HOLLOWS

col1516.ord UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01516-JKS-GGH Document 21 Filed 10/06/05 Page 1 of 1
##### 



Exhibit 31 Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I, Michael J. Koss, certify that: 1.   I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Koss 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.   I am 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 my supervision, to
ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me 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 my 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.   I have disclosed, based on my 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: November 17, 2004 /s/ Michael J. Koss
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURES DEADLINE

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH (State Bar #074414)

JENNIFER L. STENEBERG (State Bar #202985)

THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

2806 Van Ness Avenue

San Francisco, CA 94109

Telephone: 415/674-8600

Facsimile: 415/674-9900

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BYRON CHAPMAN

and DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT, 

EDUCATION SERVICES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

BYRON CHAPMAN, an individual; and

DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION SERVICES:HELPING

YOU HELP OTHERS, a California public

benefit corporation,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PARK WEST OFFICE CENTER; 940

ALAMO PARTNERS LTD.

PARTNERSHIP, a former California

limited partnership; JOHN W. MARTON;

CLAUDIA BAUM; ROMEO D. &

MARIA C. TABIJE; WILLIAM M. &

CLAIRE S. CONNER, as trustees of the

CONNER TRUST; GARY W. & ROSA

M. PHILLIPS, as trustees of the PHILLIPS

FAMILY 1991 REVOCABLE TRUST;

TERESA C. HITE, as trustee of the HITE

FAMILY TRUST; MDMSF, LLC., a

California limited liability company;

GERALD E. & JANICE F. SWANK, as

trustees of the SWANK FAMILY TRUST;

and YIN FAMILY LP-REAL ESTATE LP,

a California limited partnership, 

Defendants.

___________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. CIV.S-04-1520 FCD (DAD)

STIPULATION AND ORDER

CONTINUING THE EXPERT

DISCLOSURES DEADLINE

The Court’s Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Order requires disclosure of expert witnesses

on or before August 9, 2005. Due to a pre-planned vacation, plaintiffs’ expert has been

unavailable to finalize his written report. Therefore, the parties stipulate to and respectfully

Case 2:04-cv-01520-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER CONTINUING THE EXPERT DISCLOSURES DEADLINE 2

request a short, one-week continuance of the disclosures deadline to accommodate plaintiffs’

expert’s schedule.

IT IS SO STIPULATED.

Dated: August 1, 2005 THOMAS E. FRANKOVICH,

A PROFESSIONAL LAW CORPORATION

By: /s/ 

Jennifer L. Steneberg

Attorneys for Plaintiffs BYRON CHAPMAN and

DISABILITY RIGHTS ENFORCEMENT,

EDUCATION SERVICES

Dated: July 27, 2005 PORTER SCOTT WEIBERG & DELEHANT

By: /s/ 

Jeffrey D. Christensen

Attorneys for Defendants CLAUDIA BAUM,

ROMEO D. & MARIA C. TABIJE, WILLIAM M.

& CLAIRE S. CONNER, GARY W. & ROSA M.

PHILLIPS, TERESA C. HITE, MDMSF, LLC., and

GERALD E. & JANICE F. SWANK

Dated: July 29, 2005 SEYFARTH SHAW, LLP

By: /s/ 

Stefan Schnitzler

Attorneys for Defendant YIN FAMILY LP-REAL

ESTATE LP

ORDER

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that disclosures of expert witnesses shall be continued to

August 16, 2005. Rebuttal experts shall be disclosed on or before September 5, 2005.

Dated: August 2, 2005

 /s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

Hon. Frank C. Damrell

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:04-cv-01520-FCD-DAD Document 17 Filed 08/02/05 Page 2 of 2
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.A 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 on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2005, of
El Paso Production Holding Company (the Company) as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Lisa A. Stewart, President and Chief Executive
Officer, certify (i) that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and (ii) that the information contained in the
Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company. /s/ Lisa A. StewartLisa A. StewartPresident(Principal Executive Officer)August 5, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to El Paso
Production Holding Company and will be retained by El Paso Production Holding Company and furnished
to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Before the Third Division,

February 25, 1952

No. 56421.

protest 139960-K (Pembina).

#### William C. Mackay, Special Administrator of the Estate of William Fraser Mackay *v.*United States,

*409Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of raw skins similar in all material respects to those the subject of Abstract 41327, the claim for free entry under paragraph 1765 was sustained.
[Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5214.]

NOTICE This slip opinion is subject to formal revision before it is published in an
advance sheet of the Ohio Official Reports. Readers are requested to promptly notify the Reporter of De cisions, Supreme Court of Ohio, 65 South Front Street, Columbus, Ohio 43215, of any typographical or other formal errors in the opinion, in order that corrections may be made before the opinion is published.

S LIP O PINION N O . 2018-O HIO -5214
T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . J OHNSON , A PPELLANT . [Until this opinion appears in the Ohio Official Reports advance sheets, it may be cited as State v. Johnson, Slip Opinion No. 2018-Ohio-5214.] Appeal dismissed as having been improvidently accepted

. (No. 2018-0449

― Submitted June 27, 2018

― Decided December 27, 2018.)
A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Williams County, No. WM-16-008, 2018-Ohio-527.

_________________ {¶ 1} This case is dismissed as having been improvidently accepted.
O’D ONNELL , K ENNEDY , F RENCH , F ISCHER , D E W INE , and D E G ENARO , JJ.,

concur. O’C ONNOR , C.J., dissents and would order briefing.

_________________ Katherine J. Zartman, Williams County Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defende r, and Nikki Trautman Baszynski, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.S UPREME C OURT OF O HIO

2 _________________
No. 52280.

protests 554080-G, etc. (New York).

#### Brust & Sachs *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *United States*v. *Julius Kayser & Co.*(33 C. C. P. A. 179, C. A. D. 333) the cotton gloves were held dutiable at 50 percent under paragraph 915 as "made of fabric knit on other than a warp-knitting machine,” and the knit cotton fabric was held dutiable at 35 percent under paragraph 914 as “made on other than a warp-knitting machine,” plus 10 cents per pound additional duty under paragraph 924 in both instances.
No. 66833.

#### Norman G. Jensen, Inc. *v.*United States,

protests 60/7344, etc. (Pembina).

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of horsemeat, fresh, chilled, or frozen, similar in all material respects to that the subject of Abstract 66357, the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
No. 60840.

#### Wool Distributing Corp. *v.*United States,

protest 272653-K (New York).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with rule 5 (b) of the rules of this court, as amended, the protest was dismissed for lack of prosecution.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KENNETH D. PHELON,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-0857 DFL KJM P

vs.

TOM L. CAREY, 

Respondent. ORDER

 /

Petitioner, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed an application for a writ of

habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Petitioner has paid the filing fee. Recently, petitioner

filed materials to “supplement” his petition.

The court requires all applications for writ of habeas corpus be filed on the proper

form which is provided by this court. Petitioner is hereby notified that in order for this court to

review his application, he must re-file it on the court’s form and complete all sections of the form

as explained on the form itself. Furthermore, although petitioner may submit a separate

memorandum in support of his application for relief, the court's application form must contain all

relevant claims, and must provide the court with all necessary information. 

In accordance with the above, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. Petitioner's application for writ of habeas corpus is dismissed with leave to

Case 2:04-cv-00857-RRB -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

amend within thirty days from the date of this order;

2. Any amended application must be filed on the form employed by this court and

must state all claims and prayers for relief on the form. It must bear the case number assigned to

this action and must bear the title “Amended Application”; and

3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send petitioner the form for habeas corpus

application. 

DATED: May 11, 2005.

______________________________________

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

1/kf

phel0857.115

Case 2:04-cv-00857-RRB -KJM Document 5 Filed 05/12/05 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 15,050.

#### UNITED STATES v. EMERSON.

[4 Cranch, C. C. 188.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

Dec. Term, 1831.

Contempt—Objectionable Language—Assault— In Presence op Court.

It is a contempt of court, punishable under the act of congress of the 2d of March, 1831 *[‡*Stat. 487], “declaratory of the law concerning con-tempts of court,” *m*call another a liar openly in the presence of the court while in session, and in the hearing of the officers of the court; and an assault and battery committed in the hall of entrance into the court room, separated from it only by a door without panels, and covered with cloth, was either “in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice.”

[Cited in U. S. v. Anon.. 21 Fed. 770.]

[Cited in Holman v. State, 5 N. E. 558.]

The defendant [Hiram S. Emerson] was brought before the court by the marshal for contempt. He had been standing near the stove, in the court room, in conversation with a man named Childs, concerning a suit which some negroes had brought for their freedom against Emerson, when the latter said to him, in the hearing of the crier and bailiffs, “You are a liar,” to which Childs replied, "You are a damned liar.” The crier commanded silence. Emerson shook his finger in Childs’ face, and said, “This place is your protection”; to which Childs said, “This is not a place for altercation. I am willing to see you anywhere.” They then went into the central hall of entrance, separated from the court room only by a door without panels, but covered with cloth, so as to afford but a slight obstruction to the sound. In the hall the conversation was repeated, and Emerson struck Childs several times with a whip. Some of the officers of the court being present brought the parties immediately before the court, who, upon hearing the testimony, ordered both parties to give security to appear in court the next day to answer interrogatories touching the supposed contempt. On this day the parties appeared, and answered the interrogatories which had been filed by the attorney of the United States; and, the facts appearing thereby to be substantially as before stated,

1

 [Reported by Hon. William Craneh, Chief Judge.]

THE COURT

(nem. con.) was of opinion that the language used by each to the other, in the presence of the court, was a contempt, and that the attack made by Emerson upon Childs, in the hall of entrance, while the court was sitting, was either “in the presence of the court, or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice,” within the meaning of the act of congress of the 2d of March, 1831 [4 Stat. 487], “declaratory of the law concerning contempts of court”

THE COURT therefore imposed a fine of five dollars upon each of the parties.

The grand jury having afterward found an indictment against Emerson for the assault and battery, and he having submitted to the court, was fined five dollars upon that indictment
Exhibit 12.2

# KANSAS CITY POWER & LIGHT
COMPANY

# COMPUTATION OF RATIO
OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

|                                   |            
|---------------------------------- | -----------
|
|                                   |            
|                                   | (thousands)
|Income from continuing operations  |            
|Add                                |            
|Equity investment (income) loss    |            
|Minority interests in subsidiaries |            
|                                   |            
|Income subtotal                    |            
|                                   |            
|Add                                |            
|Taxes on income                    |            
|Kansas City earnings tax           |            
|                                   |            
|Total taxes on income              |            
|                                   |            
|Interest on value of leased        |            
|property                           |            
|Interest on long-term debt         |            
|Interest on short-term debt        |            
|Mandatorily redeemable Preferred   |            
|Securities                         |            
|Other interest expense             |            
|and amortization                   |            
|                                   |            
|Total fixed charges                |            
|                                   |            
|Earnings before taxes on           |            
|income and fixed charges           |            
|                                   |            
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |            
|                                   |
No. 61351.

protest 253224-K (New York).

#### British Overseas Airways Corporation *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Donlon, J.

The protest was dismissed.
#### UNITED STATES, Respondent v CIPRIANO SCHULTZ GARCIA, Private First Class, U. S. Army, Petitioner

18 USCMA 5, 39 CMR 5

No. 20,903

November 1, 1968

*Captain Douglas J. Wold*argued the cause for Petitioner. With him on the brief were *Colonel Daniel T. Ghent*and *Captain John Wall Hanft.*

*Captain Harvey L. Anderson*argued the cause for Respondent. With him on the brief were *Lieutenant Colonel David Rarick, Major Edwin P. Wasinger,*and *Captain Gregory U. Evans.*

Opinion of the Court

Quinn, Chief Judge:

The present application seeks reconsideration of an earlier denial of a petition for grant of review of a decision by a board of review affirming findings of guilty made by a general court-martial and approving a sentence extending to a dishonorable discharge and confinement at hard labor for four years. The petition was denied April 1, 1968, 17 USCMA 666, 38 CMR 441. See United States v Frischholz, 16 USCMA 150, 36 CMR 306. The application is based upon our decision in United States v Bearchild, 17 USCMA 598, 38 CMR 396, in which this Court applied the rule promulgated by the Supreme Court of the United States in Harrison v United States, 392 US 219, 20 L Ed 2d 1047, 88 S Ct 2008 (1968), to the effect that the Government must establish on the record that in-court testimony by the accused is not compelled by the erroneous admission into evidence of a pretrial confession.

*Bearchild*was decided subsequent to the denial of the accused’s petition for *6grant of review. As a result, the Government contends *Bear child*is not retroactive and does not provide any basis for relief to this petitioner. See Johnson v New Jersey, 384 US 719, 16 L Ed 2d 882, 86 S Ct 1772 (1966). We need not decide the merits of that contention.

A review of the proceedings in this Court indicates that Bearchild’s petition for grant of review was pending at the same time as this petitioner’s. The two petitions alleged the same error, which had been raised in each ease before the board of review. It further appears that we acted in the petitioner’s case only three days before our final consideration of Bearchild’s petition for grant of review resulted in our decision to consider the issue in light of the recent expansion of constitutional doctrine. In these circumstances, we believe the petitioner is entitled to the same review as was accorded Bear-child.

The present petition, treated as a petition for reconsideration, is granted. As in *Bear child,*supra, the decision of the board of review is reversed and the findings of guilty and the sentence are set aside. A rehearing may be ordered.

Judge Ferguson concurs.