alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22085]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

DATE: Weeks of August 18, 25, September 1, and 8, 1997.

PLACE: Commissioners' Conference Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Public and Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:

Week of August 18

Friday, August 22

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting)
    A: Louisiana Energy Services (Claiborne Enrichment Center); Atomic 
Safety and Licensing Board Partial Initial Decision (Resolving 
Contentions B and J.3), LBP-973 (Tentative)

Week of August 25--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of August 25.

Week of September 1--Tentative

Wednesday, September 3

11:30 a.m. Affirmation Session (Public Meeting) (if needed)

Week of September 8--Tentative

    There are no meetings scheduled for the week of September 8.
    The schedule for Commission meetings is subject to change on short 
notice. To verify the status of meetings call (Recording)--(301) 415-
1292.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Bill Hill (301) 415-1661.

    The NRC Meeting Schedule can be found on the Internet at:

http://www.nrc.gov/SECY/smj/schedule.htm

    This notice is distributed by mail to several hundred subscribers; 
if you no longer wish to receive it, or would like to be added to it, 
please contact the Office of the Secretary. Attn: Operations Branch, 
Washington, D.C. 20555 (301-415-1661).
    In addition, distribution of this meeting notice over the internet 
system is available. If you are interested in receiving this Commission 
meeting schedule electronically, please send an electronic message of 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#23544e4b634d51400d444c55"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71061c19311f03125f161e07">[email protected]</span></a> or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b8dcd3cff8d6cadb96dfd7ce"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="71151a06311f03125f161e07">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 15, 1997.
William M. Hill, Jr.,
SECY Tracking Officer, Office of the Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22085 Filed 8-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit 23.2**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTINGFIRM**

We consent to theincorporation by reference in Registration Statement No. 333-100409on Form S-3 and Registration Statements No. 333-51458, No. 333-08992,No. 333-38455, No. 333-04609, No. 333-112103, No. 33-53988,No. 33-19662, No. 2-87376, No. 33-33566, and No. 333-91389on Form S-8 of Ault Incorporated and Subsidiaries of our reportdated August 18, 2003 (October 4, 2005, as to the information for theyear ended June 1, 2003, in Note 2), relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements and financial statement schedule appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Ault Incorporated and Subsidiaries for theyear ended May 29, 2005.

/s/ Deloitte &Touche LLP

Minneapolis, MinnesotaOctober 4, 2005

66

----
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 Big Sky Industries IV, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer 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: February 5, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
#### Ex parte Jerry ODOM.

SC 2705.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

July 29, 1977.

FAULKNER, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit32.1

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350,ASADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of VillageEDOCS, Inc. (the "Company") onForm 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commissionon the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned certifies,pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

(2)The information contained in the Quarterly Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

| Date:  May 15, 2008                                                         | /s/ K. Mason Conner                  |
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------|
|           ------------------------- | ------------------------------------ |
|                                                                                  | Chief Executive Officer              |

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BYSECTION 906, OR OTHER DOCUMENT AUTHENTICATING, ACKNOWLEDGING, OR OTHERWISEADOPTING THE SIGNATURE THAT APPEARS IN TYPED FORM WITHIN THE ELECTRONIC VERSIONOF THIS WRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906, HAS BEEN PROVIDED TOVILLAGEEDOCS, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY VILLAGEEDOCS, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THESECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
Exhibit






    
First Amendment to
Shareholder Agreement


This First Amendment (this “Amendment”) to the Shareholder Agreement, by and between Churchill Downs Incorporated, a Kentucky corporation (the “Company”), and Paul J. Thelen (the “Shareholder”), is made and entered into as of October 23, 2015.
WHEREAS, the Company and the Shareholder entered into that certain Shareholder Agreement dated as of November 12, 2014 (the “Shareholder Agreement”); 
WHEREAS, pursuant to the terms of the Shareholder Agreement, the Company agreed to pay to the Shareholder a bonus equal to $50,000,000, payable in four (4) equal annual installments, contingent upon the satisfaction of certain performance measures (the “Shareholder Cash Bonus”), which each of the Company and the Shareholder now wishes to cancel in accordance with the terms of this Amendment; and
WHEREAS, in exchange for the cancellation of the Shareholder Cash Bonus, the Company has granted certain Executive Long-Term Incentive Plan awards to the Shareholder.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Shareholder Agreement as follows:
1.Amendment to Shareholder Agreement.  Section 1 of the Shareholder Agreement is hereby deleted and replaced in its entirety by the following:
“1.     Intentionally Omitted”
2.Terms to Remain in Effect.  Except as expressly amended or superseded by this Amendment, the Shareholder Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.  Upon the execution and delivery hereof, the Shareholder Agreement shall thereupon be deemed to be amended and supplemented as hereinabove set forth as fully and with the same effect as if the amendments and supplements made hereby were originally set forth in the Shareholder Agreement, and this Amendment and the Shareholder Agreement shall henceforth be read, taken and construed as one and the same instrument.  On and after the date hereof, each reference in the Shareholder Agreement to “this Agreement”, “herein”, “hereof”, “hereunder” or words of similar import shall mean and be a reference to the Shareholder Agreement as amended hereby.


[Remainder of page intentionally left blank.]











IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment has been duly executed as of the date first above written.


            


Company:
Churchill Downs Incorporated,
a Kentucky corporation
By: /s/ William C. Carstanjen_____________
Name: William C. Carstanjen 
Title: Chief Executive Officer 


Shareholder:
/s/ Paul J. Thelen_____________________ 
Paul J. Thelen
#### Harry LAMB, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-20.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1978.

Bennett H. Brummer, Public Defender and Karen M. Gottlieb, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen. and Anthony C. Musto, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, BARKDULL and NATHAN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The single point presented on this appeal is that the trial judge erred in denying the defendant’s motion to strike “also, known as Robert Morgan” from the information. The appellant, Harry Lamb, was found guilty by a jury of burglary of a structure with intent to commit petit larceny and of petit larceny.

An information was filed which charged the defendant as “Harry Lamb also known as Robert Morgan.” The defendant pleaded not guilty at arraignment. Immediately prior to trial, he moved to strike the designated portion of the information. Defense counsel admitted that the defendant had used the name “Robert Morgan” at his preliminary hearing. The court denied the motion.

No Florida case has been cited which holds that the use of a second name in an information is reversible error. But see Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.140(d)(2). We recognize that there may be situations where the use of one or more “alias” names might tend to prejudice the defendant’s right to a fair trial. See the discussions in *D’Allessandro v. United States,*90 F.2d 640 (3d Cir. 1937); *United States v. Grayson,*166 F.2d 863 (2d Cir. 1948); and *State v. Varner,*329 S.W.2d 623 (Mo.1959).

The present matter does not fall within the theory of such cases for several reasons. *125First of all, there was nothing inherently demeaning in the appellation used. Secondly, the word “alias” was not used. Also, the two names were relevant because the defendant acknowledged his double identity at the preliminary hearing. Cf. *People v. Fognini,*47 Ill.2d 150, 265 N.E.2d 133 (1970); and see the point of law in *Castle v. State,*305 So.2d 794, 797 (Fla. 4th DCA 1974). Therefore, no prejudice has been shown.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1)
    
    I have reviewed this amended quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of American Spectrum Realty, Inc.;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)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are 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 our supervision, to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is known to us 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 our 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; andc)
    
    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 that
has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants
internal control over financial reporting;
 5)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and
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;
andb)
    
    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: October 8, 2008
    By:
    /s/ G. Anthony EppolitoG. Anthony EppolitoChief Financial Officer 26
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATION**I, Heidi O’Neil, Director of Finance and Administration, certify that:1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Z-Axis Corporation; 2. Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this annual report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisannual report; 4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and15d-14) for the registrant and have: a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report isbeing prepared;  b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures asof the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and  c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls whichcould adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses ininternal controls; and  b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this annual report whetheror not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that couldsignificantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation,including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses.June 9, 2006   /s/ Heidi O’Neil     Heidi O’Neil  Director of Finance and Administration
Order entered April 7, 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 14
- 01234
- CV STO CORP., Appellant
V. CANAL SIDE LOFTS, LT D., ET AL., Appellee s On Appeal from the 44th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial C ourt Cause No. 11
- 04649
- B 

### O RDER
We GRANT appellant’s April 2, 2015 motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellant shall file a brief by MAY 6, 2015

.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
!nc. 

Analytical Method






_
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21939]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-346-001]


Equitrans, L.P.; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 11, 1997, Equitrans, L.P. (Equitrans) 
tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff revised tariff 
sheets in compliance with the Commission's Order Accepting and 
Suspending Tariff Sheets and Establishing Hearing issued on July 31, 
1997 (the July 31 Order). Equitrans proposes primary and alternate 
tariff sheets both bearing an effective date of August 1, 1997.
    Equitrans states that the primary sheets reflect the recalculation 
of rates based on the return on equity level mandated in the 
Commission's July 31 Order. Equitrans states that the alternate sheets 
reflect the recalculation of the rates based on the return on equity 
proposed in Equitrans' April 30, 1997 rate filing. Both the primary and 
alternate rate sheets reflect the elimination of Equitrans' proposed 
refunctionalization of facilities in accordance with the July 31 Order. 
Equitrans also filed a protest to the requirement that the primary 
tariff sheets be placed into effect.
    Equitrans requests a waiver of Section 154.206 of the Commission's 
Regulations and any other regulations necessary to permit the rates 
proposed herein to take effect on August 1, 1997.
    Equitrans states that copies of this rate filing were served on 
Equitrans' jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest the filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20046, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests should 
be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's 
Regulations. Protests will be considered by the Commission in 
determining appropriate action, 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21939 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 99-1243.

#### Lorefice *v.*United States.

C. A. 7th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Before the Second Division,

April 20, 1942

No. 47100.

#### Protests 14911-K, etc., of Morris Shoenthal, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was agreed between counsel that certain items in question consist of hemp knotted straw hats, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained. In accordance therewith the claim that they are dutiable at only 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) was sustained.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED MARCH 17, 2015

NO. 03-14-00727-CV

Naomi Jefferson, Appellant

v.

Nate the Great Trust, Appellee

APPEAL FROM COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE ROSE, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

This is an appeal from the judgment signed by the trial court on October 13, 2014. Having 

reviewed the record, the Court holds that Naomi Jefferson has not prosecuted her appeal and did 

not comply with a notice from the Clerk of this Court. Therefore, the Court dismisses the appeal 

for want of prosecution. The appellant shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this 

Court and the court below.
#### MARGATE VILLAGE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, INC., Appellant, v. WILFRED, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

Nos. 76-2539, 77-637.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 6, 1977.

*17Alan S. Becker of Becker & Poliakoff, P. A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Robert H. Anderson II of Coleman, Leonard & Morrison, Fort Lauderdale, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

These are consolidated appeals taken by the appellant from orders granting a temporary injunction and denying motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The appellee, Wilfred, Inc., brought the action below seeking a temporary and permanent injunction against the appellant, Margate Village Condominium Association, Inc., from imposing assessments against Wilfred, as a unit owner, for the purpose of financing any legal actions brought against Wilfred, as the owner and developer. We reverse.

The complaint alleged that the association, through its board of directors, adopted a resolution levying an assessment against unit owners to defray the expense of bringing a lawsuit against the developer-lessor, Wilfred; that the association lacks standing to bring such a suit; and that Wilfred has no adequate remedy at law and will be irreparably harmed if the assessments are allowed to stand.

The complaint specifically alleged that a condominium association lacks standing to bring suit against a developer-lessor to test the validity of a recreation lease. The law is to the contrary.1 As a unit owner, Wilfred is subject to the same assessments as other unit owners.2 And the legality of those assessments is subject to no extra challenge because the unit owner happens, as a matter of coincidence, to be the developer-lessor.

There is some suggestion on appeal that the assessments are illegal because of the manner in which they were passed. However, there are no specific allegations in the complaint supporting such a claim.

*18Moreover, the time to challenge the legality of the assessments is when the assessments are sought to be enforced. We do not think the complaint stated a cause of action for injunctive relief, and the motion to dismiss should have been granted.

Accordingly, this cause is hereby reversed and remanded for further proceedings consistent herewith.

ANSTEAD, DAUKSCH and LETTS, JJ., concur.

1

. Avila *South Condominium Association, Inc. v. Kappa Corporation,*Florida Supreme Court, 347 So.2d 599, Opinion issued March 31, 1977; *Imperial Towers Condominium v. Brown,*338 So.2d 1081 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976).

2

. *Century 21 Commodore Plaza, Inc. v. Commodore Plaza at Century 21 Condominium Association,*340 So.2d 945 (Fla. 3d DCA 1976).