alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 161 (Wednesday, August 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22032]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


John E. Fogarty International Center for Advanced Study in the 
Health Sciences; Notice of Meeting of the Fogarty International Center 
Advisory Board

    Pursuant to Pub. L. 92-463, as amended, notice is hereby given of 
the thirty-seventh meeting of the Fogarty International Center (FIC) 
Advisory Board, September 23, 1997, in the Lawton Chiles International 
House (Building 16) at the National Institutes of Health. The Research 
Awards Subcommittee will meet on September 22 in the FIC Conference 
Room, Building 31, Room B2C07, from 1:00 p.m. to approximately 4:00 
p.m., and will be closed to the public.
    The meeting of the Board will be open to the public from 8:30 a.m. 
to approximately 12:00 noon.
    The agenda will include a report by the Director, FIC; a report on 
the status of the planning and implementation process of the Government 
Performance and Results Act at the NIH; a presentation on the results 
of the evaluation of the International Cooperative Biodiversity Groups 
Programs; a presentation on the Institute of Medicine's Board on 
International Health Report ``America's Vital Interest in Global 
Health;'' and an update on FIC long-range planning activities.
    In accordance with the provisions of sections 552b(c)(4) and 
552(c)(6), Title 5, United States Code and section 10(d) of Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended, the entire meeting of the Research Awards Subcommittee 
on September 22 will be closed to the public from 1:00 p.m. to 
approximately 4:00 p.m., and the Board meeting on September 23 will be 
closed to the public from 1:00 p.m. to adjournment for the review of 
applications for awards under the Senior International Fellowship 
Program; and the Fogarty International Research Collaboration Awards 
and HIV, AIDS and Related Illnesses Collaboration Awards.
    Paula Cohen, Committee Management Officer, Fogarty International 
Center, National Institutes of Health, Building 31, Room B2C08, 31 
CENTER DR MSC 2220, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-2220, telephone: 301-496-
1491, will provide a summary of the meeting and a roster of the 
committee members upon request.
    Irene Edwards, Executive Secretary, Fogarty International Center 
Advisory Board, Building 31, Room B2C08, telephone: 301-496-1491, will 
provide substantive program information.
    Individuals who plan to attend and need special assistance, such as 
sign language interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should 
contact Ms. Cohen at least 2 weeks in advance of the meeting.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.989, Senior 
International Fellowship Awards Program, and 93.934, Fogarty 
International Research Collaboration Award.)

    Dated: August 12, 1997.
Laverne Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-22032 Filed 8-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
No. 74 — 6086.

#### Gonzalez-Diaz *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Motion for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*and certiorari granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of *United States*v. *Ortiz, ante,*p. 891, and *United States*v. *Brignoni-Ponce, ante,*p. 873.
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-15-00242-CV

_________________

IN THE INTEREST OF E.D., M.S., M.S., R.S., and R.C.

________________________________________________________________________

On Appeal from the 317th District Court

Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. C-221,760

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

K.S. appeals from an order terminating her parental rights to her minor

children, E.D., M.S., M.S., R.S., and R.C.1 After a bench trial, the trial court found, 

by clear and convincing evidence, that statutory grounds existed for the 

termination of K.S.’s parental rights and that termination of her rights would be in 

the best interest of the children. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 161.001(1)(D), (E), 

(N), (O), (P), (R), (2) (West 2014). 

 1 The trial court also terminated the parental rights of the children’s 

respective alleged fathers, but the fathers did not appeal the trial court’s judgment 

and are not parties to this appeal.
2

K.S.’s court-appointed appellate counsel submitted a brief in which counsel 

contends there are no arguable grounds to be advanced on appeal. See Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967); In re L.D.T., 161 S.W.3d 728, 731 (Tex. App.—

Beaumont 2005, no pet.). The brief provides counsel’s professional evaluation of 

the record. Counsel certified that counsel served K.S. with a copy of the Anders

brief filed on her behalf. This Court notified K.S. of her right to file a pro se 

response, as well as the deadline for doing so. This Court did not receive a pro se 

response.

We have independently reviewed the appellate record and counsel’s brief, 

and we agree that any appeal would be frivolous. We find no arguable error 

requiring us to order appointment of new counsel to re-brief this appeal. Cf.

Stafford v. State, 813 S.W.2d 503, 511 (Tex. Crim. App. 1991). We affirm the trial 

court’s order terminating K.S.’s parental rights, and we grant counsel’s motion to 

withdraw.2

 2 In connection with withdrawing from the case, counsel shall inform K.S. of 

the outcome of this appeal and inform her that she has the right to file a petition for 

review with the Texas Supreme Court. See Tex. R. App. P. 53; In re K.D., 127 

S.W.3d 66, 68 n. 3 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2003, no pet.).
3

AFFIRMED.

 

______________________________

 CHARLES KREGER

 Justice

Submitted on October 9, 2015

Opinion Delivered October 29, 2015

Before Kreger, Horton, and Johnson, JJ.
October 2, 2015

Mr. John Hudson

375 East 2nd Street

Beaver, PA 15009

Dear Mr. Hudson:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from 

sections of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in Docket No. FAA−2015−2862 on July 10, 2015, 

but we are unable to process your request any further. Your petition does not comply with the 

requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must 

send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the 

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information 

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption 

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption. 
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosures
3
4
No. 00-6932.

#### Sorce *v.*Artuz, Superintendent, Green Haven Correctional Facility.

C. A. 2d Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>
 
                                                                     EXHIBIT 12

                              HARTMARX CORPORATION
                       STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF RATIOS
                         (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT RATIOS)
                                  (UNAUDITED)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                         YEARS ENDED NOVEMBER 30,
                                          -------------------------------------------------------
                                           1998        1997        1996        1995        1994
                                          -------     -------     -------     -------     -------
<S>                                       <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>         <C>
Earnings from continuing
operations before provision for
income taxes per Consolidated
Statement of Earnings                     $23,585     $16,545     $ 7,700     $ 1,630     $ 5,139

Add:

   Interest Expense /(a)/                  18,633      17,480      16,681      20,001      21,214

   Portion of rents representative
   of the interest factor/ (a) (b)/         3,622       3,736       3,424       6,114       8,054

                                          -------------------------------------------------------
Income as adjusted                        $45,840     $37,761     $27,805     $27,745     $34,407
                                          =======================================================
Fixed charges:

   Interest expense /(a)/                 $18,633     $17,480     $16,681     $20,001     $21,214

   Portion of rents representative
   of the interest factor /(a) (b)/         3,622       3,736       3,424       6,114       8,054
                                          -------------------------------------------------------
Fixed charges                             $22,255     $21,216     $20,105     $26,115     $29,268
                                          =======================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges           2.06        1.78        1.38        1.06        1.18
                                          =======================================================
</TABLE>

(a) Includes amounts related to discontinued operations for 1995 and 1994.

(b) Represents one-third of rent expense which management believes represents a
    reasonable approximation of the interest component of rent expense.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42969]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21112]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-197-004]

Chandeleur Pipe Line Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

August 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 1, 1997, Chandeleur Pipe Line Company 
(Chandeleur) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the revised tariff sheets hereto in compliance 
with directives noted in the Commission's Letter Order Pursuant to 
Section 375.307 (b)(1) and (b)(3) issued July 21, 1997 in the above-
referenced dockets, to become effective June 1, 1997.
    Chandeleur states that it is serving copies of the filing to its 
customers, State Commissions and interested parties.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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 in the Public 
Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21112 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
#### Eugene Ewan MORI, Appellant, v. BOMAC INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1978.

Rehearing Denied May 23, 1978.

*48David M. Goldstein, North Miami, for appellant.

Fred J. Ward, Hallandale, for appellee Bouley.

PER CURIAM.

Our consideration of the briefs and record convinces us that there is adequate support in the record for the trial court’s finding that appellee Paul Bouley is not liable individually to appellant.

However, we find no rational basis in the evidence for the award to appellant of $500.00 as damages. The liquidated damages provision of the lease provided for $15,000.00 as liquidated damages in the event of a breach by appellee Bomac. The money was never deposited with appellant because appellee’s check was returned for insufficient funds. However, the liquidated damage provision is not nullified by appel-lee failing to deposit the money provided therein. The amount of damages remains liquidated by the parties. The determination in the final analysis of the amount thereof should be made in accordance with the formula set forth in *Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin,*317 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975).

Accordingly, we reverse the damages aspect of the judgment appealed from and remand the cause for a new trial on damages only.

AFFIRMED, in part; REVERSED, in part; and REMANDED, with directions.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and DOWNEY, J., concur.

CROSS, J., dissents, with opinion.

CROSS, Judge,

dissenting:

I respectfully dissent.

The majority would remand this cause for a re-determination of damages on the authority of *Bruce Builders, Inc. v. Goodwin,*317 So.2d 868 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975). The *Bruce Builders*case recognizes that even if a valid clause for liquidated damages is included in an executory contract, equity may relieve a party from forfeiture if circumstances demonstrate that it would be unconscionable for the non-breaching party to retain such liquidated sum. In the instant case, the able trial court made a finding of fact that appellant suffered *no*loss as a result of the breach of the contract of lease. Thus, it appears that the trial court was fully authorized and eminently correct in giving no force and effect to the liquidated damages clause. There has been no showing of any error, and therefore I would affirm the judgment.
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 the Quarterly Report of Big Sky Industries VI, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 6, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries VI, Inc.
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



Certification



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, the undersigned officer of First Century Bankshares, Inc. (the Company) hereby certifies that the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Dated: March 22, 2004



/s/ J. Ronald HypesJ. Ronald Hypes, Treasurer(Chief Financial Officer)




The foregoing
certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure document.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                            9
<CIK>                         0000723458
<NAME>                        STATE BANCORP INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS

<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999

<CASH>                                      37,216,796
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         211,675
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                            27,000,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                396,259,492
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                         569,002
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                           565,528
<LOANS>                                    488,948,385
<ALLOWANCE>                                  7,106,627
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             949,829,410
<DEPOSITS>                                 804,462,926
<SHORT-TERM>                                83,338,000
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          5,925,387
<LONG-TERM>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    35,391,105
<OTHER-SE>                                  20,711,992
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             949,829,410
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             40,339,780
<INTEREST-INVEST>                           19,898,255
<INTEREST-OTHER>                             1,270,484
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            61,508,519
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                          21,905,826
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          25,473,096
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       36,035,423
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                3,000,000
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                            (375,689)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             20,452,093
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             14,729,372
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                  10,328,708
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                10,328,708
<EPS-BASIC>                                       1.48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.46
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    7.79
<LOANS-NON>                                  5,193,855
<LOANS-PAST>                                     2,521
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                               421,511
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             5,788,440
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                2,125,694
<RECOVERIES>                                   443,881
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            7,106,627
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                         6,155,798
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                        950,829



</TABLE>
#### Tommy Lee McDOWELL, a/k/a Spooky, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2080.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 2, 1978.

Earl L. Maxwell, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and John D. Cecilian, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

CROSS and MOORE, JJ., concur.

DAUKSCH, J., dissents with opinion.

DAUKSCH, Judge,

dissenting:

I must respectfully dissent. Appellant was charged with attempted possession of heroin and attempted delivery of heroin. The evidence upon which he was convicted was that an undercover agent gave the appellant twenty dollars to buy either one or two “bags” of “stuff”. The undercover agent was qualified as an “expert in narcotics street language” and was allowed to interpret “bag” to mean tinfoil packet and “stuff” to mean heroin. When the agent took the appellant to a house appellant left the agent’s car and went to the house and returned, declaring no one was home.

Upon this evidence the appellant was convicted. It is legally insufficient. There is a lack of legally substantial proof that the defendant knew that bag meant tinfoil packet and stuff meant heroin. Even if that was proved the evidence does not meet the standard Judge Cross said was required in *Groneau v. State of Florida,*201 So.2d 599 (Fla. 4th DCA 1967) in order to convict a person of an attempt.

*64This case should be reversed and the appellant discharged.
#### Darlene MAROTTO, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 77-2273.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

May 23, 1978.

Rehearing Denied July 12, 1978.

Robert S. McCain, Fort Lauderdale, for petitioner.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Harry M. Hipler, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby DENIED,

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., and Sir MONS, STUART M., Associate Judge, concur.