alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20790]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group

AGENCY: Department of Defense, USSTRATCOM.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Strategic Advisory Group (SAG) will meet in closed session 
on October 23 and 24, 1997. The mission of the SAG is to provide timely 
advice on scientific, technical,and policy-related issues to the 
Commander in Chief, U.S. Strategic Command, during the development of 
the nation's strategic warplans. At this meeting, the SAG will discuss 
strategic issues that relate to the development of the Single 
Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP). Full development of the topics will 
require discussion of information classified TOP SECRET in accordance 
with Executive Order 12958, April 17, 1995. Access to this information 
must be strictly limited to personnel having requisite security 
clearances and specific need-to-know. Unauthorized disclosure of the 
information to be discussed at the SAG meeting could have exceptionally 
grave impact upon national defense.
    In accordance with section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act, (5 U.S.C. App 2), it has been determined that this SAG meeting 
concerns matters listed in 5 USC 552b(c) and that, accordingly, this 
meeting will be closed to the public.

    Dated: August 1, 1997.
L. M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 97-20790 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements
No. 33-47517, 33-70834 and 33-78928 of Caprius, Inc. (the "Company") on Form S-8
of our report dated November 30, 1998 on the consolidated financial statements
of the Company and its subsidiaries for the year ended September 30, 1998, which
contains an explanatory paragraph expressing substantial doubt about the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern, appearing in this Annual
Report on Form 10-K of the Company.


                                           /s/ BDO Seidman, LLP
                                           BDO Seidman, LLP
                                           
Boston, Massachusetts
January 12, 1999
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER ON M OTION FOR R EHEARING

Appellate case name: Ex parte Alan Nelson Crotts

Appellate case number: 01

- 1 8

- 0 0 666

- C R

Trial court case number: 13

- CCR

- 165781

Trial court: County Court at Law No. 3 of Fort Bend County

Date motion filed: December 2 , 2019

Party filing motion: Appellant

Appellant has filed a “Motion to Modify Judgment,” which we construe as a motion for

rehearing. It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is denied

.

Judge’s signature:

___

/s/ Julie Countiss

___ Acting for the Court

Panel consists of: Justices Kelly, Hightower, and Countiss

.

Date: _

__ December 12, 2019

___
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 147 (Thursday, July 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 41050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20234]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY

[FEMA-1180-DR]


Wisconsin; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Wisconsin (FEMA-1180-DR), dated July 7, 1997, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 15, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madge Dale, Response and Recovery 
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, 
(202) 646-3260.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that, effective this 
date and pursuant to the authority vested in the Director of the 
Federal Emergency Management Agency under Executive Order 12148, I 
hereby appoint Steve Adukaitis of the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency to act as the Federal Coordinating Officer for this declared 
disaster.
    This action terminates my appointment of Gary Pierson as Federal 
Coordinating Officer for this disaster.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance)
James L. Witt,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-20234 Filed 7-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
No. 43280.

Suit *4243.*

#### *Hartmann Trunk Co.*v. *United States.*

C. D. 80 affirmed. C. A. D. 96.
United States 

Department of 

Agriculture

Forest 

Service 

Rogue River-Siskiyou 

National Forest 

Wild Rivers Ranger District 

26568 Redwood Hwy 

Cave Junction, OR 97523 

Dear Neighbor, 

File Code: 1950-1 

Date: March 10, 2009 

 

 

Here is the Butcherknife/Slate Hazardous Fuel Reduction Project Environmental Assessment 

(EA). The EA (as well as the supporting reports that form the Analysis File) is also available 

through the Rogue River-Siskiyou National Forest web site. The internet address where these 

documents are located is: www.fs.fed.us/r6/rogue-siskiyou/projects/planning/index.shtml . 

This project is designed to manage the forests within the Wildland Urban Interface between the 

Biscuit burn area and the village of Wonder within the Butcherknife Creek and Slate Creek 

watersheds on lands administered by the Wild Rivers Ranger District. This letter initiates the 

predecisional administrative review (objection) process for the Butcherknife/Slate Project, as 

authorized by the Healthy Forests Restoration Act (HFRA) of 2003. This follows the review and 

predecisional objection procedures specifically established for hazardous fuel reduction projects, 

pursuant to HFRA, set out at 36 CFR part 218, subpart A. 

I encourage early participation and collaborative efforts, as well as resolution of concerns before 

a decision is made on this project. If you have thoughts or concerns, please contact me by phone 

at (541) 592-4001 or by e-mail at jtking@fs.fed.us or write me at the address above. 

Written objections, including any attachments, must be filed with Scott Conroy, Reviewing 

Officer, within 30 days after the publication date of the legal notice of the EA in the Grants Pass 

Daily Courier Newspaper. The date of legal notice publication is anticipated to be Friday, 

March 13, 2009. It is the responsibility of objectors to ensure that their objection is received in a 

timely manner. 

The reviewing officer is Scott Conroy, Forest Supervisor, Rogue River Siskiyou National Forest. 

His address is 3040 Biddle Road, Medford, OR 97504. Office hours for those submitting handdelivered comments are 8:00 AM to 4:30 PM, Monday through Friday, excluding holidays. 

Should electronic mailing be more convenient, you may send your objection statements via 

facsimile to (541) 618-2400 or to the following e-mail address: comments-pacificnorthwestrogueriver-siskiyou@fs.fed.us . 

Thank you for caring for your National Forest! 

Sincerely, 

Joel T. King

 

JOEL T. KING 

District Ranger 

 

Enclosure: (1) 

 Caring for the Land and Serving People Printed on Recycled Paper
| (1)   | the                Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of EncryptaKey, Inc for the quarter                ended                March 31, 2007 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 Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for                the                quarter ended March 31, 2007, fairly presents in all material respects,                the financial condition and results of operations of EncryptaKey,                Inc. |
|-----------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:    | /s/                Kelly Owen                                                                      |
|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| Name:  | Kelly                Owen                                                                          |
| Title: | Principal                Executive Officer,Principal                Financial Officer and Director |
| Date:  | June                25, 2007                                                                       |
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 97-40953

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JOHNNIE FAE BEAUMONT,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 97-40953

- - - - - - - - - -

December 1, 1998

Before DAVIS, DUHE’, and PARKER, Circuit Judges

PER CURIAM:*

Johnnie Fae Beaumont, federal prisoner # 03051-078, appeals

from the district court’s judgment denying her 28 U.S.C. § 2255

motion to set aside her sentence. We have reviewed the record

and the briefs of the parties, and we affirm the district court’s

judgment. Because Beaumont challenged the sufficiency of the

evidence in her direct appeal, we do not reach the issue again in

this appeal. See United States v. Kalish, 780 F.2d 506, 508 (5th

Cir. 1986); United States v. Beaumont, 972 F.2d 553, 563-64 (5th 
No. 97-40953

-2-

Cir. 1992). None of the three grounds of ineffective assistance

of counsel Beaumont raises for the first time on appeal rise to

the level of plain error. See United States v. Calverley, 37

F.3d 160, 162-64 (5th Cir. 1994)(en banc). Beaumont’s double

jeopardy claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in

United States v. Ursery, 116 S. Ct. 2135, 2149 (1996). Her

conclusional conflict-of-interest assertion is insufficient to

raise a § 2255 constitutional claim. See Koch v. Puckett, 907

F.2d 524, 530 (5th Cir. 1990). Finally, Beaumont’s claim that

the fine was excessive is beyond the scope of her § 2255 motion. 

See United States v. Segler, 37 F.3d 1131, 1136-37 (5th Cir.

1994).

AFFIRMED.
# C_2013178EN.01000302.xml

| 22.6.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 178/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

22.6.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 178/3

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) lodged on 27 March 2013 — Staatssecretaris van Financiën v X B.V.

(Case C-154/13)

2013/C 178/05

Language of the case: Dutch

Referring court

Referring court

Hoge Raad der Nederlanden

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Staatssecretaris van Financiën

Applicant:

Defendant: X B.V.

Defendant:

Questions referred

Questions referred

| 1. | Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician? |
| --- | --- |

1.

Must Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive (1) be interpreted as meaning that the exemption from VAT for which that provision provides does not apply to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses? If the answer is no, is the application of the exemption subject to the condition that the dental prostheses are supplied from abroad by a dentist and/or dental technician to a dentist or dental technician?

1

| 2. | If the exemption from VAT (whether or not under the conditions described in Question 1) for which Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive provides applies to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses, does the exemption therefore apply in Member States, such as the Netherlands, which have complied with the exemption provided for in Article 132 of the 2006 VAT Directive, to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originating from a Member State which has taken advantage of the derogating and transitional arrangements for which Article 370 of the 2006 VAT Directive provides? |
| --- | --- |

2.

If the exemption from VAT (whether or not under the conditions described in Question 1) for which Article 140(a) and (b) of the 2006 VAT Directive provides applies to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses, does the exemption therefore apply in Member States, such as the Netherlands, which have complied with the exemption provided for in Article 132 of the 2006 VAT Directive, to the intra-Community acquisition of dental prostheses originating from a Member State which has taken advantage of the derogating and transitional arrangements for which Article 370 of the 2006 VAT Directive provides?

---

(1)  Council Directive 2006/112/EC from the Raad of 28 November 2006 on the common system of value added tax (OJ 2006 L 347, p. 1).

1

---
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 119 (Tuesday, June 21, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 36171]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-15379]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

Agency Information Collection Activities: Requests for Comments; 
Clearance of Renewed Approval of Information Collection: Rotorcraft 
External Load Operator Certificate Application

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, FAA 
invites public comments about our intention to request the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) approval to renew an information 
collection. Information required from the public by 14 CFR part 133 is 
used by the FAA to process the operating certificate as a record of 
aircraft authorized for use, and to monitor Rotorcraft External-Load 
Operations.

DATES: Written comments should be submitted by August 22, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carla Scott on (202) 385-4293, or by 
e-mail at: Carla.Scott@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    OMB Control Number: 2120-0044.
    Title: Rotorcraft External Load Operator Certificate Application.
    Form Numbers: FAA Form 8710-4.
    Type of Review: Renewal of an information collection.
    Background: The information required by 14 CFR part 133 is used by 
the FAA to process the operating certificate as a record of aircraft 
authorized for use, and to monitor Rotorcraft External-Load Operations. 
FAA Form 8710-4, Rotorcraft External-Load Operator Certificate 
Application, provides a record of surveillance activities when 
completed by an inspector. If the information was not collected, FAA 
would not be able to meet its regulatory responsibilities under Part 
133.
    Respondents: Approximately 4,000 applicants.
    Frequency: Information is collected on occasion.
    Estimated Average Burden per Response: 2.26 hours.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden: 3,268 hours.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to the FAA at the following address: Ms. Carla 
Scott, Room 336, Federal Aviation Administration, AES-300, 950 L'Enfant 
Plaza, SW., Washington, DC 20024.
    Public Comments Invited: You are asked to comment on any aspect of 
this information collection, including (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for FAA's performance; (b) the 
accuracy of the estimated burden; (c) ways for FAA to enhance the 
quality, utility and clarity of the information collection; and (d) 
ways that the burden could be minimized without reducing the quality of 
the collected information. The agency will summarize and/or include 
your comments in the request for OMB's clearance of this information 
collection.

    Issued in Washington, DC on June 15, 2011.
Carla Scott,
FAA Information Collection Clearance Officer, IT Enterprises Business 
Services Division, AES-200.
[FR Doc. 2011-15379 Filed 6-20-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
CompuTrac, Inc.

         Exhibit 23.1 - Consent of Grant Thornton LLP, Independent Certified
                                 Public Accountants



       We  have issued  our report  dated  March 25,  1998, accompanying  the
       consolidated  financial statements  included in  the Annual  Report of
       CompuTrac, Inc.  on Form 10-KSB for  the year ended January  31, 1998.
       We hereby consent to the incorporation  by reference of said report in
       the Registration Statements of CompuTrac, Inc.  on Form S-8 (File Nos.
       33-40732; 33-40734; 33-02906; 33-07319; 33-61577).





       GRANT THORNTON LLP

       Dallas, Texas
       April 25, 1998


       <PAGE>




                                   CompuTrac, Inc.

             Exhibit 23.2 - Consent of Price Waterhouse LLP, Independent
                                     Accountants



       We  hereby  co nsent  to  the  incorpo ration  by  reference  in  the
       Registration  Statements  on  Form  S-8  (Nos.  33-40732 ; 33- 40734;
       33-02906; 33-07319; 33-61577)  of CompuTrac, In c. of our report
       dated  March 25 , 1997 appearing on  page 24 of this  annual report on
       Form 10-KSB.





       PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

       Dallas, Texas
       April 29, 1998
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2394 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2394

    To suspend temporarily the duty on capsicum extracted oleoresin.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mr. Cardin introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To suspend temporarily the duty on capsicum extracted oleoresin.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. CAPSICUM EXTRACTED OLEORESIN.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Capsicum extracted  Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        oleoresin (CAS                                                     31/2015.......
                        No. 8023-77-6)
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        3301.90.10)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### Genaro Manuel HERNANDEZ, Appellant, v. Alex Paulding PARROTT, Appellee.

No. 76-673.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 17, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1977.

Samuel Sheradsky, Miami, for appellant.

Weissenborn, Burr & Hyman, Miami, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

BARKDULL, Judge.

In an intersectional accident case, tried before a jury, with issues as to the negligence of both the plaintiff-driver and the defendant-driver, the trial court permitted evidence that the plaintiff-driver and the owner of the automobile he was driving settled property damage claims with one of the defendants. This should not have been permitted into evidence. See: *Babcock*v. *Flowers,*144 Fla. 479, 198 So. 326, wherein the following syllabus is found:

> * ‘ * * * * *

> “4. In' tort action for personal injuries, the admission of testimony, over defendant’s objection that the defendant had stated that he would take care of plaintiff’s hospital bills was error since an agreement to pay expenses of an injured person constitutes no admission of actionable negligence on the part of the person making such agreement.”

> 

*1214The other points urged for reversal have been examined and found to be without merit.

The final judgment and the jury verdict adverse to the appellant, plaintiff-driver in the trial court, be and the same are hereby reversed and the cause is remanded to the trial court for a new trial.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.
#### Susanne F. PENNYPACKER, Petitioner, v. UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA, Respondent.

No. EE-447.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 2, 1977.

Stanley R. Morris and Larry G. Turner, Gainesville, for petitioner.

Thomas S. Biggs, Jr. and Ashmun H. Brown, Gainesville, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the president of the University of Florida and underlying recommended order of the hearing officer are supported by substantial competent evidence and are not contrary to law. Section *87120.68, Florida Statutes (Supp.1976). The prayer of the petition for review is

DENIED

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and MELVIN, JJ., concur.