alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4041]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1973]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM97-3-25-001]


Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

January 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on January 15, 1997, Mississippi River 
Transmission Corporation (MRT) submitted for filing worksheets 
reflecting the calculation of Miscellaneous Revenues in compliance with 
the December 31, 1996 Order issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission in this proceeding. As explained in its filing, MRTs 
worksheets set out explanations and support for the calculation of its 
imbalance purchases and sales and for the cashout rate applied in each 
of MRTs cashout transactions.
    MRT states that copies of the compliance filing have been mailed to 
all parties on the official service list.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commissions Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such 
protests should be filed on or before January 29, 1997. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-1973 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-7234

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MARIO CASTRILLON,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-89-159-B, CA-97-81-R)

Submitted: March 30, 1999 Decided: April 16, 1999

Before HAMILTON and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Mario Castrillon, Appellant Pro Se. Julie C. Dudley, Assistant

United States Attorney, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Mario Castrillon seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 &

Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Castrillon’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See United States

v. Castrillon, Nos. CR-89-159-B; CA-97-81-R (W.D. Va. June 26 and

Sept. 9, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43038]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21106]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Office of Thrift Supervision
[AC-25; OTS No. 6755]


Dollar Savings Bank, Newark, New Jersey; Approval of Conversion 
Application

    Notice is hereby given that on July 31, 1997, the Director, 
Corporate Activities, Office of Thrift Supervision, or her designee, 
acting pursuant to delegated authority, approved the application of 
Dollar Savings Bank, Newark, New Jersey, to convert to the stock form 
of organization. Copies of the application are available for inspection 
at the Dissemination Branch, Office of Thrift Supervision, 1700 G 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20552, and the Northeast Regional 
Office, Office of Thrift Supervision, 10 Exchange Place, 18th Floor, 
Jersey City, New Jersey 07302.

    Dated: August 6, 1997.

    By the Office of Thrift Supervision.
Nadine Y. Washington,
Corporate Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21106 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6720-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 of International Development Corp.,
a  Nevada  corporation  (the  "Company")  and Subsidiary, on Form 10-QSB for the
period  ended May 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on  the  date  hereof  (the  "Report"),  I,  D. Brian Robertson, Chief Financial
Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that:

     (1)     The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d)  of  the  Securities  Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and

     (2)     The  information  contained  in  the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the consolidated financial condition and result of operations
of  the  Company.

Dated  July  15,  2005.
                                   By  /s/  D. Brian Robertson
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     D. Brian Robertson,
                                     Chief Financial Officer of
                                     International Development Corp.
Exhibit 99.1


                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 the report of General Telephony.com, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Victor Minca, President of the Company (the Company's chief executive officer),
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley 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/ Victor Minca
                                    --------------------
                                    Victor Minca
                                    President
                                    Date:  December 5, 2002
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 96-30101 Summary Calendar

__________________ UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,
versus RICO D. LEWIS, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Louisiana USDC No. 95-CR-50048-001
- - - - - - - - - - July 19, 1996 Before SMITH, DUHÉ, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Rico D. Lewis appeals his sentence for felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(1). He argues that the district court failed to give adequate reasons to support its upward departure from the Sentencing Guidelines and failed to consider intermediate offense levels. Lewis' 18 criminal history points gave him 5 points more than the minimum required to be placed in criminal history category VI. See U.S.S.G. Ch. 5, Pt. A, sentencing table. TheNo. 96-30101 -2- inadequacy of a defendant's criminal history category is an acceptable basis for an upward departure. See United States v. Laury , 985 F.2d 1293, 1310 (5th Cir. 1993)(defendant's 20 criminal history points well above the 13 required to place him in criminal history category VI). The district court relied on the inadequacy of Lewis' criminal history score and his history of repeated acts of similar criminal activity, not on his educational training or job history, in deciding to depart. The district court's reason for departing upwardly was not clearly
erroneous. The district court properly calculated Lewis' offense level by using the criminal history category points in excess of the 13 required to reach criminal history catagory IV to increase his offense level incrementally. See United States v. Rosogie , 21 F.3d 632, 634-35 (5th Cir. 1994). Lewis also argues that the district court erred in awarding a one-level enhancement under U.S.S.G. § 2K2.1(b)(1)(A). Any error as to the district court's determination that all three firearms located in the car constituted relevant conduct and are attributable to Lewis is harmless. See Williams v. United States , 503 U.S. 193, 203 (1992); United States v. CabralCastilo , 35 F.3d 182, 188 (5th Cir. 1994), cert. denied , 115 S. Ct. 1157 (1995). AFFIRMED.
No. 99-1186.

#### Shelton *v.*Nevada.

Sup. Ct. Nev. Certiorari denied.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       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 of BigString  Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report"),  I,
Todd M.  Ross,  Chief  Financial  Officer  of the  Company,  do hereby  certify,
pursuant  to  18  U.S.C.   ss.1350,   as  adopted  pursuant  to  ss.906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1)      the Report fully complies with the requirements of ss.13(a) or 15(d) of
         the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. ss.78m or 78o(d), and,

(2)      the  information  contained  in  the  Report  fairly  presents,  in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Company.



Dated:  August 11, 2006                       /s/ Todd M. Ross
                                            ----------------------------
                                            Todd M. Ross
                                            Chief Financial Officer
INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT

 

To the Partners

Bartley Manor Limited Partnership

Middleton, Wisconsin

 

We have audited the accompanying balance sheets of Bartley Manor Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the related statements of income and partners' capital and cash flows for the years then ended. These financial statements are the responsibilityof the company's management. Our responsibility is to express an opinion on these financial statements based on our audits.

 

We conductedour audits in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America and Government Auditing Standards issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.  We believe that our audits provide a reasonable basis for our opinion.

 

In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the financial position of Bartley Manor Limited Partnership as of December 31, 2004 and 2003, and the results of its operations and cash flows for the years then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

 

In accordance with Government Auditing Standards and the Consolidated Audit Guide for Audits of HUD Programs issued by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, we have also issued a report dated January 14, 2005, on our consideration of the partnership's internal control, and reports dated January 14, 2005, on its compliance with specific requirements applicable to the major and nonmajor programs, and specific requirements applicable to Fair Housing and Non-Discrimination. The purpose of those reports is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. Those reports are an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered       in assessing the results of our audit.

 

Our audits were conducted for the purpose of forming an opinion on the basic financial statements taken as a whole.  The supplemental information provided, as identified in the table of contents, is presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements.  Such information has been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole.
No. 99-994.

#### Sysco Food Services of San Francisco, Inc. *v.*Norris.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.

Justice Breyer took no part in the consideration or decision of this petition.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS AND CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-30-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                           7,702
<SECURITIES>                                       155
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,499
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,063
<INVENTORY>                                     34,804
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                67,257
<PP&E>                                         171,952
<DEPRECIATION>                                  61,006
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 209,799
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,148
<BONDS>                                         90,628
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            69
<OTHER-SE>                                       6,800
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   209,799
<SALES>                                        581,119
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               581,119
<CGS>                                          435,867
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  573,196
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              11,583
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (3,660)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,164
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,496)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,496)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.51)


</TABLE>
#### Don M. ZEMO v. R. A. LOUVIERE, Sr., et al.

No. 60747.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1977.

In re: Don M. Zemo applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Jefferson Parish. 349 So.2d 420.

The result is correct.

Writ denied.
```

[110th Congress Public Law 333]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]

[DOCID: f:publ333.110]

[[Page 122 STAT. 3722]]

Public Law 110-333
110th Congress

                                 An Act

 
To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 
 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida, as the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles 
     Post Office Building''. <<NOTE: Sept. 30, 2008 -  [S. 3241]>> 

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. CEECEE ROSS LYLES POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 1717 Orange Avenue in Fort Pierce, Florida, shall be known 
and designated as the ``CeeCee Ross Lyles Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``CeeCee Ross 
Lyles Post Office Building''.

    Approved September 30, 2008.

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY--S. 3241 (H.R. 6772):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 154 (2008):
            Aug. 1, considered and passed Senate.
            Sept. 23, considered and passed House.

                                  <all>
```
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Craig Robinson, Appellant.

[611 NYS2d 547]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Joan Carey, J.), rendered January 14, 1992, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of grand larceny in the fourth degree, and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to a term of *lVi*to 3 years, unanimously affirmed.

Contrary to defendant’s argument, the instruction that a reasonable doubt "is a doubt which if you were called upon, you could give a reasonable or a rational explanation” did not improperly impose upon the jurors a duty to articulate the reasons for their doubt, but merely "defined the required degree of clarity and coherence of thought, focusing on the jurors’ intellectual effort” *(People v Brin,*190 AD2d 512, *lv denied*82 NY2d 751, citing *People v Antommarchi,*80 NY2d 247, 251-252; *see also, People v Uraca,*195 AD2d 377, *lv denied*82 NY2d 728; *People v Jackson,*155 AD2d 329, *affd*76 NY2d 908). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Wallach, Ross, Rubin and Tom, JJ.
# C_2015065EN.01000702.xml

| 23.2.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 65/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 65/7

---

Judgment of the Court (Grand Chamber) of 18 December 2014 (request for a preliminary ruling from the High Court of Justice (Chancery Division) — United Kingdom) — International Stem Cell Corporation v Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

(Case C-364/13) (1)

1

((Reference for a preliminary ruling - Directive 98/44/EC - Article 6(2)(c) - Legal protection of biotechnological inventions - Parthenogenetic activation of oocytes - Production of human embryonic stem cells - Patentability - Exclusion of ‘uses of human embryos for industrial or commercial purposes’ - Concepts of ‘human embryo’ and ‘organism capable of commencing the process of development of a human being’))

(2015/C 065/10)

Language of the case: English

Referring court

Referring court

High Court of Justice (Chancery)

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: International Stem Cell Corporation

Applicant:

Defendant: Comptroller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks

Defendant:

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

Article 6(2)(c) of Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions must be interpreted as meaning that an unfertilised human ovum whose division and further development have been stimulated by parthenogenesis does not constitute a ‘human embryo’, within the meaning of that provision, if, in the light of current scientific knowledge, it does not, in itself, have the inherent capacity of developing into a human being, this being a matter for the national court to determine.

---

(1)  OJ C 260, 7.9.2013.

1

---
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title:****Effects of agriculturalconservation practices on fish and wildlife [electronic resource] : aConservation Effects Assessment Project (CEAP) bibliography**
 
7A | 7B
 
SuDoc Number:A 17.24:2008-01/V.7 A-B
Item Number:0095-A-03 (online)
CGP systemNumber:000630249
 
September 17, 2019