alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1404 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1404

  To clarify that terminal development grants remain in effect under 
                          certain conditions.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 14, 2005

   Mr. Bond introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To clarify that terminal development grants remain in effect under 
                          certain conditions.

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

SECTION 1. AIRPORT DEVELOPMENT.

    (a) In General.--Section 47108(e) of title 49, United States Code, 
is amended by adding at the end the following:
            ``(3) Changes to nonhub primary status.--If the status of a 
        nonhub primary airport changes to a small hub primary airport 
        at a time when the airport has received discretionary funds 
        under this chapter for a terminal development project in 
        accordance with section 47110(d)(2), and the project is not yet 
        completed, the project shall remain eligible for funding from 
        the discretionary fund and the small airport fund to pay costs 
        allowable under section 47110(d). The project shall remain 
        eligible for the funds for 3 fiscal years after the start of 
        construction of the project, or, if the Secretary determines 
        that a further extension of eligibility is justified, until the 
        project is completed.''.
    (b) Conforming Amendment.--Section 47110(d)(2)(A) is amended by 
striking ``(A) the'' and inserting ``(A) except as provided in section 
47108(e)(3), the''.
                                 <all>
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43767]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice # 2578]


Advisory Committee on International Communications and 
Information Policy; Public Meeting

    The Department of State is holding the next meeting of its Advisory 
Committee on International Communications and Information Policy. The 
Committee was renewed in 1996, in order to continue to provide a formal 
channel for regular consultation and coordination on major economic, 
social and legal issues and problems in international communications 
and information policy, especially as these issues and problems involve 
users of information and communication services, providers of such 
services, technology research and development, foreign industrial and 
regulatory policy, the activities of international organizations with 
regard to communications and information, and developing country 
interests.
    The 30-person committee was appointed by Ambassador Vonya B. 
McCann, United States Coordinator for International Communications and 
Information Policy, U.S. Department of State, and serves under the 
Chairmanship of Ed Black, President, Computer & Communications Industry 
Association.
    The purpose of this meeting will be to hear reports from the 
working groups on various issues that chart the future direction and 
work plan of the committee. The members will look at the substantive 
issues on which the committee should focus, as well as specific 
countries and regions of interest to the committee.
    This meeting will be held on Thursday, September 4, 1997, from 9:30 
a.m.-12:30 p.m. in Room 1107 of the Main Building of the U.S. 
Department of State, located at 2201 ``C'' Street, N.W., Washington, 
D.C. 20520. Members of the public may attend these meetings up to the 
seating capacity of the room. While the meeting is open to the public, 
admittance to the State Department Building is only by means of a pre-
arranged clearance list. In order to be placed on the preclearance 
list, please provide your name, title, company, social security number, 
date of birth, and citizenship to Shirlett Brewer at (202) 647-5233 or 
by fax at (202) 647-5957. All attendees must use the ``C'' Street 
entrance. One of the following valid ID's will be required for 
admittance: any U.S. driver's license with photo, a passport, or a U.S. 
Government agency ID.
    For further information, contact Timothy C. Finton, Executive 
Secretary of the Committee, at (202) 647-5385.

    Dated: August 1, 1997.
Timothy C. Finton,
Executive Secretary, Advisory Committee for International 
Communications and Information Policy.
[FR Doc. 97-21634 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-45-M
#### Stephen BRACEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee. Danny Lee COCHRAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

Nos. HH-448, HH-449.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1978.

*73Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Louis G. Carres, Asst. Public Defender, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Charles W. Musgrove, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellants entered pleas of guilty to offense of making or uttering a false prescription, contrary to Section 893.13(3)(a), Florida Statutes (1975). Appellants were adjudicated guilty of the offense. Imposition of sentence was withheld and appellants were placed on probation for a period of five years. As a condition of probation, Bracey was ordered to spend nine (9) months in county jail, whereas Cochran was ordered to spend eleven (11) months and twenty-nine (29) days in county jail. Appellants urge the trial court erred by not allowing appellants credit for time spent in county jail prior to entry of the order of probation.

Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), provides:

> “A sentence of imprisonment shall not begin to run before the date it is imposed, but the court imposing a sentence shall allow a defendant credit for all of the time he spent in the county jail before sentence. The credit must be for a specified period of time and shall be provided for in the sentence.”

Under Section 948.01(3), Florida Statutes (1975), the trial court is authorized to stay and withhold imposition of sentence, and place a defendant on probation. The court may, as a condition of probation, order that the defendant spend a specified period of time in jail. Section 948.03, Florida Statutes (1975). *State v. Jones,*327 So.2d 18 (Fla.1976).

We do not believe Section 921.161(1), Florida Statutes-(1975), is applicable in the present situation. The order of probation does not constitute an imposition of sentence necessitating applicability of Section 921.161(1).

Accordingly, the trial court did not err in refusing to allow credit for time served against the jail term imposed as a condition of probation.

The judgments and sentences are AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERYIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.
## Yellowstone - Worst - Total Extinction Yellowstone - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction YELL2 NIA 2000 20 40.87 YELL2 NIA 2000 20 4.16 YELL2 NIA 2001 22 38.88 YELL2 NIA 2001 22 4.71 YELL2 NIA 2002 22 31.83 YELL2 NIA 2002 22 3.8 YELL2 NIA 2003 21 31.37 YELL2 NIA 2003 21 4.07 YELL2 NIA 2004 23 29.79 YELL2 NIA 2004 23 4.57 

## 172.74 Total 21.31 Total 34.548 Average 4.262 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 12% Yellowstone - Best - Total Extinction Yellowstone - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction YELL2 NIA 2000 19 13.24 YELL2 NIA 2000 19 1.68 YELL2 NIA 2001 21 13.55 YELL2 NIA 2001 21 1.92 YELL2 NIA 2002 21 12.99 YELL2 NIA 2002 21 1.32 YELL2 NIA 2003 20 12.15 YELL2 NIA 2003 20 1.12 YELL2 NIA 2004 22 13.03 YELL2 NIA 2004 22 1.33 

## 64.96 Total 7.37 Total 12.992 Average 1.474 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 11% North Absaroka - Worst - Total Extinction North Absaroka - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 28.72 NOAB1 NIA 2002 22 5.35 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 41.43 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 4.67 NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 28.05 NOAB1 NIA 2004 23 4.59 

## 98.2 Total 14.61 Total 32.73333 Average 4.87 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 15% North Absaroka - Best - Total Extinction North Absaroka - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction NOAB1 NIA 2002 21 12.55 NOAB1 NIA 2002 21 1.26 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 12.07 NOAB1 NIA 2003 21 0.91 NOAB1 NIA 2004 22 12.21 NOAB1 NIA 2004 22 1.15 

## 36.83 Total 3.32 Total 12.27667 Average 1.1066667 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 9% Bridger - Worst - Total Extinction Bridger - Worst - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction BRID1 NIA 2000 22 31.07 BRID1 NIA 2000 22 4.49 BRID1 NIA 2001 23 30.02 BRID1 NIA 2001 23 5.9 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 34.56 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 4.32 BRID1 NIA 2003 24 34.04 BRID1 NIA 2003 24 4.93 BRID1 NIA 2004 25 28.3 BRID1 NIA 2004 25 5.32 

## 157.99 Total 24.96 Total 31.598 Average 4.992 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 16% Bridger - Best - Total Extinction Bridger - Best - SO4 Extinction

Site Method Year N Total Extinction Site Method Year N SO4 Extinction BRID1 NIA 2000 21 12.89 BRID1 NIA 2000 21 1.87 BRID1 NIA 2001 22 12.9 BRID1 NIA 2001 22 1.65 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 12.33 BRID1 NIA 2002 22 1.4 BRID1 NIA 2003 23 11.83 BRID1 NIA 2003 23 1.11 BRID1 NIA 2004 24 11.96 BRID1 NIA 2004 24 1.25 

## 61.91 Total 7.28 Total 12.382 Average 1.456 Average 2000-2004 Average Annual Sulfate Share of Particle Light Extinction 12%
#### James F. RYAN, Appellant, v. Nick BEUCHER, Jr. and Robert N. Beucher, Appellees.

No. 77-1632.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

May 26, 1978.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1978.

P. C. Gorman, Leesburg, for appellant.

Bernard C. O’Neill, Jr., of Roby, O’Neill, Dyer & Bogner, Orlando, for appellees.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant appeals a final summary judgment entered in favor of appellees.

The final summary judgment included the basic judgment for $5,000 plus interest and costs. The cost judgment included the payment for copies of depositions taken by the appellant and furnished to the appellees. This portion of the judgment for costs was error. *Cohen v. Dennis,*209 So.2d 465 (Fla.3d DCA 1968); *Florida Greyhound Lines v. Jones,*60 So.2d 396 (Fla.1952).

The final summary judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and DANAHY, J., concur.
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 Shallbetter Industries, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the
period ending June 30, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Terry Wong, President 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 requirement 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 Company's
> financial position and results of operations.

/s/Terry Wong



 Terry Wong,

 President

August 13, 2004
#### Keith Douglas WILLIAMS, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. DD-436.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Sept. 22, 1977.

Henry R. Barksdale, Pensacola, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., A. S. Johnston, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Although via a separate appeal by a different appellant, the circumstances of this case have already been considered by a different panel of this court in *Thomas v. State,*349 So.2d 743 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977). Our consideration of the record in this case convinces us that said decision is dispositive sub judice and requires the same holding for the same reasons. In *Thomas v. State,*supra, the appeal was from a judgment of conviction for only one charge, attempted armed robbery. However, during oral argument in the case sub judice the state with admirable candor conceded that if this court was correct in its holding in the *Thomas*case that upon retrial evidence of conversations between Thomas and the deceased informant tending to support the defense of entrapment should be admitted, then such reasoning and holding is equally applicable sub judice not only to the charge of attempted robbery but also the two other charges lodged against Williams, viz: Possession of a short-barrelled shotgun and possession of a gun by a convicted felon. We agree. Lest there be any misunderstanding of our holding, we do not here *10hold that entrapment in this case is a viable defense, but only that evidence in support of that defense should be admitted as to each of the charges lodged against Williams.

We reject appellant’s contention that the learned trial judge erred in denying Williams’ motion for judgment of acquittal made at the conclusion of the evidence presented by the state and renewed at the conclusion of all of the evidence. We also reject the contention that the court erred in failing to grant Williams’ motion for change of venue.

The other points raised by appellant we find to have become moot or are without merit.

As did our brothers, in *Thomas*v. *State,*we find that the ends of justice require a new trial rather than discharge.

Reversed and remanded for a new trial.

McCORD, C. J., and BOYER and MILLS, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. McKinley DOYLE.

No. 59200.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 8, 1977.

Barry Viosca, Orleans Indigent Defender Program, New Orleans, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., Louise Korns, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
**Exhibit 23.2**

 

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements (No. 333-115305, 333-115307 and 333-115308) on Form S-8 of ourreport relating to the financial statements of Embratel Participações S.A. dated March 17, 2004 (except with respect to the matters discussed in Note 30 and 31, as to which the date is May 21, 2004), appearing in the Annual Report onForm 10-K of MCI Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTETOUCHE TOHMATSU AUDITORES INDEPENDENTES 

 

Rio de Janeiro, Brazil 

February 21, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42588-42589]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20782]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Notice of Receipt of Application for Endangered Species Permit

    The following applicants have applied for a permit to conduct 
certain activities with endangered species. This notice is provided 
pursuant to Section

[[Page 42589]]

10(c) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 
et seq.):

PRT-832591

Applicant: Sheri A. Paderewski, University of Virginia, Department 
of Biology, Charlottesville

    The applicant requests authorization to remove and reduce to 
possession (collect seeds, collect and temporarily retain whole plants) 
the Roan Mountain bluet, Hedyotis purpurea var. montana, from Pisgah 
National Forest, North Carolina for the purpose of enhancement of 
survival of the species.

PRT-832549

Applicant: Jeffery M. Selby, ENSR, Norcross, Georgia

    The applicant requests authorization to take (capture, identify, 
and release) 20 species of threatened and endangered fishes, freshwater 
mussels, and aquatic invertebrates, throughout the species ranges in 
Alabama, Georgia, and Tennessee, for the purpose of enhancement of 
survival of the species.
    Written data or comments on these applications should be submitted 
to: Regional Permit Biologist, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1875 
Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345. All data and 
comments must be received by September 8, 1997.
    Documents and other information submitted with this application are 
available for review, subject to the requirements of the Privacy Act 
and Freedom of Information Act, by any party who submits a written 
request for a copy of such documents to the following office within 30 
days of the date of publication of this notice: U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 1875 Century Boulevard, Suite 200, Atlanta, Georgia 30345 
(Attn: David Dell, Permit Biologist). Telephone: 404/679-7313; Fax: 
404/679-7081.

    Dated: July 31, 1997.
H. Dale Hall,
Acting Regional Director
[FR Doc. 97-20782 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
#### Evelyn KOOGAN, Appellant, v. NATIONAL HOME LIFE ASSURANCE COMPANY, a Missouri Corporation, Appellee.

No. 76-2112.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 13, 1977.

Matthew M. Slepin, Miami, for appellant.

Thornton, Dougherty & Conroy and Bruce F. Simberg, Miami, for appellee.

Before BARKDULL, HUBBART and KEHOE, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See and compare: *Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Anglin,*306 So.2d 147 (Fla.2d DCA 1975).
#### Frances Joann Hill HIGGINS and Phillip Higgins v. Matthew G. JOHNSON et al.

No. 60698.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 14, 1977.

In re: Matthew G. Johnson, Chart House, Inc. and Liberty Mutual Ins. Co. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, East Baton Rouge Parish. 349 So.2d 918.

Writ denied.
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeCustomer SupportTrainingDetails

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# LDI - Logistics Data Interpretation

## Course Description

Provides an in-depth review of all information contained within a NSN and related data elements contained within a Total Item Record (TIR). The FLIS TIR will be analyzed and interpreted using standard DLA products and services. 24 Hour Course.

## Target Audience

Wholesale level logisticians and supply support personnel who wish to gain an understanding of the FLIS and related data elements.

## Delivery Methods

Classroom Instruction (20 hours- 2.5 days)

## Contact us

For questions or additional interest in Training.

**Scheduling Program Manager**Commercial/Federal Telecommunication System (FTS): **  269-961-4829DSN: **  312-661-4829**J31CT Training Office Fax Line**Commercial/Federal Telecommunications System (FTS)/FAX: **  269-961-5035DSN: **  312-661-5035E-mail: **  dla.tng@dla.mil

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Logistics Data InterpretationLDI
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



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, 2004 (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 23, 2005



/s/ R. W. WilkinsonR. W. WilkinsonPresident and Chief Executive 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.
#### Charles MURRAY, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. HH-279.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 16, 1978.

*72Michael J. Minerva, Public Defender, and Janice G. Scott, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Michael H. Davidson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant seeks review of the judgments and sentences for robbery and attempted robbery. Appellant urges the trial court committed reversible error and abused its discretion by prohibiting appellant from interviewing a member of the jury after the trial.

Following rendition of the verdict, the jury was polled, and each juror indicated that the verdict was his as well as that of the jury as a whole. Appellant sought to interview one juror because during the polling of the jury, this juror began crying. This fact does not constitute a reasonable basis for belief that the verdict of the jury may be subject to a legal challenge. *Bullard v. State,*324 So.2d 652 (Fla. 1 DCA 1975). Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by prohibiting appellant from interviewing this juror.

Therefore, the judgment and sentence are AFFIRMED.

MILLS, Acting C. J., and ERVIN and BOOTH, JJ., concur.