alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42555]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20770]



[[Page 42555]]

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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[CC Docket No. 92-237; DA 97-1640]


FCC Announces the Next Two Meetings of the North American 
Numbering Council

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: On July 31, 1997, the Commission released a public notice 
announcing the next two meetings of the North American Numbering 
Council (NANC) and the proposed Agenda for those meetings. The intended 
effect of this action is to make the public aware of the NANC's next 
two meetings and its Agenda.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannie Grimes, Paralegal Specialist, 
assisting the NANC at (202) 418-2313, or via the internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1f75786d76727a6c5f797c7c31787069"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f09a9782999d9583b0969393de979f86">[email protected]</span></a>. The mailing address is: Network Services Division, 
Common Carrier Bureau, Federal Communications Commission, 2000 M 
Street, NW, Suite 235, Washington, DC 20054. The fax number is: (202) 
418-2345. The TTY number is: (202) 418-0484.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The next two meetings of the North American 
Numbering Council (NANC) will be held on Monday, August 18, 1997,from 
1:00 PM until 5:00 PM, and Tuesday, August 19, 1997, from 8:30 AM, 
until 4:30 PM, EST. Both meetings will be held at the Federal 
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, NW, Room 856, Washington, DC.

Proposed Agenda

    The planned agenda for the August 18, 1997, meeting is as follows:
    1. Discussion of Pennsylvania Public Utilities Commission (PPUC) 
Order dated July 10, 1997, concerning the implementation of 
``Transparent Area Codes'' in the 215, 610 and 717 NPAs. Participation 
by representatives from NANP Administration (Bellcore), Bell Atlantic, 
and the PPUC.
    The planned agenda for the August 19, 1997, meeting is as follows:
    1. NANC Charter Renewal.
    2. Discussion of Short Term Solutions to NXX Exhaust. Industry 
Presentations by Wireline CLECs and ILECs.
    3. Industry Numbering Committee (INC) Monthly Report to the NANC.
    4. Guidelines Issues from July 22, 1997, NANC Meeting. Status of 
Issues Referred to the Common Carrier Bureau.
    5. LNPA Working Group: Status Report.
    6. Review of Decisions Reached and Action Items.

Federal Communications Commission.
Kent Nilsson,
Deputy Chief, Network Services Division Common Carrier Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-20770 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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, 2004 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: February 25, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries VI, Inc.
# Military leaders tour Okinawa fuel facilities

/ Published July 6, 2020

Military leaders and senior U.S. officials assigned in Japan learned more about Defense Logistics Agency Energy fueling capabilities, facilities and services on the island of Okinawa June 24.

DLA Energy Okinawa Commander Air Force Maj. Tracy Gilmore and Deputy Director Kirk Moats hosted the briefing and tour. The commanders from III Marine Expeditionary Force, Marine Corps Installations Pacific, Kadena Air Base 18th Wing, 10th Regional Support Group and Fleet Activities Okinawa along with representatives from U.S. Consulate Naha and U.S. Forces Japan developed an enhanced, shared appreciation for the fuel system’s strengths, capacities and vulnerabilities.

“The Marine Corps Installation Pacific Deputy Commander requested a tour to better understand the resiliency of Defense Fuel Support Point Okinawa,” Gilmore said. “With many of the general officers not traveling right now because of Defense Department COVID-19 travel restrictions, we thought it would be the perfect time to get them together to receive the tour.”

The tour, conducted on a Navy Landing Craft Mechanized boat, included the Single Point Mooring system and the three-legged mooring system to understand how Energy Okinawa receives JP8 and JP5 fuel. The mooring systems are used to transfer fuel from a tanker ship to a staging facility, such as a tank farm on land, and allows tanker ships to discharge fuel without berthing at a pier. This system is DLA Energy Okinawa’s primary means of receiving military-grade jet fuel.
Exhibit No. 32.1
Form 10-KSB
ExperTelligence, Inc.
File No. 0-28453


          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 Annual Report of ExperTelligence, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-KSB for the year ended  September 30, 2003 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jason Smart, Chief
Executive and 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  financial  condition  and results of operations of the
Company.

Date: June 8, 2007        By:  /s/ Jason Smart
                               ---------------------------
                               Jason Smart
                               Chief Executive Officer and
                               Chief Financial Officer



-----------------
A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to ExperTelligence,  Inc. and will be retained by ExperTelligence, Inc.
and  furnished  to the  Securities  and  Exchange  Commission  or its staff upon
request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FIFNANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEETS AND CONSOLIDATED STATEMENTS OF OPERATIONS OF
THE COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 1, 1997, AND IS QUALIFIED
IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERRENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-01-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-03-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-01-1997
<CASH>                                         3677089
<SECURITIES>                                    848699
<RECEIVABLES>                                  8895864
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    7261927
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              21466979
<PP&E>                                         9434028
<DEPRECIATION>                                 5865905
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                26094461
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          6235999
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                      18055290
<OTHER-SE>                                      880521
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  26094461
<SALES>                                       40011790
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              40011790
<CGS>                                         29489141
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 29489141
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2399068
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              489931
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2275079
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (90000)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2365079
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2365079
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .72
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
        

</TABLE>
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

SHAUN DARNELL GARLAND,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

A. K. SKRIBNER; et al., 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 09-15079

D.C. No. 1:06-cv-00198-OWWGSA

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of California

Oliver W. Wanger, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted September 22, 2010** 

Before: WALLACE, HAWKINS, and THOMAS, Circuit Judges.

The district court properly dismissed Shaun Darnell Garland’s (“Garland”)

claims against defendant Lewis, without prejudice, so that Garland could re-file

them in the proper venue. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) (“A civil action . . . may . . . be

brought only in . . . a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or

FILED

OCT 05 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 09-15079

omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is

the subject of the action is situated . . .”); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 (permitting

the court, on just terms, to drop a party). 

Contrary to Garland’s contention, the district court did not err by denying

his motion to transfer him from state to federal custody because he had already

been transferred to a different state prison. See Dilley v. Gunn, 64 F.3d 1365, 1368

(9th Cir. 1995).

Garland’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive. 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 10.105
                                                                  --------------

                              TERMINATION AGREEMENT
                              ---------------------

     THIS TERMINATION AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") is made and entered into
effective as of November 14, 2007, by and among PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES,
INC. (the "Company"), YA GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, L.P. (f/k/a Cornell Capital
Partners, L.P.) (the "Investor") and NEWBRIDGE SECURITIES CORPORATION
("Newbridge").

                                    Recitals:
                                    ---------

     WHEREAS, the Company and the Investor entered into a Standby Equity
Distribution Agreement (the "Standby Equity Distribution Agreement") and a
Registration Rights Agreement (the "Registration Rights Agreement") each of
which is dated January 23, 2006. The Company, the Investor, and Newbridge have
entered into a Placement Agent Agreement (the "Placement Agent Agreement"). The
Standby Equity Distribution Agreement, the Registration Rights Agreement, and
the Placement Agent Agreement are collectively referred to as the "Transaction
Documents". In connection with the Standby Equity Distribution Agreement the
Company issued to the Investor 2,000,000 shares of the Company's common stock
(the "Investor's Shares") and in connection with the Placement Agent Agreement,
the Company issued to the Placement Agent 40,000 shares of the Company's common
stock (the "Placement Agent's Shares").

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, conditions and
covenants contained herein and in the Transaction Documents and other good and
valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties
hereto agree as follows:

     1. Termination. The Company and the Investor, and the Placement Agent (with
respect to the Placement Agent Agreement) hereby agree to terminate the
Transaction Documents and the respective rights and obligations contained
therein. As a result of this provision, none of the parties shall have any
rights or obligations under or with respect to the Transaction Documents.

     2. Investor's Shares. The Investor shall retain the Investor's Shares.

     3. Placement Agent Fees. The Placement Agent shall retain the Placement
Agent's Shares.



<PAGE>
                  [REMAINDER OF PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK]



     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have signed and delivered this Termination
Agreement on the date first set forth above.


PERFORMANCE HEALTH TECHNOLOGIES, INC.             YA GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, L.P.


By:  /s/ Robert D. Prunetti                       By: /s/ Jerry Eicke
     ---------------------------                      --------------------------
Name:  Robert D. Prunetti                         Name:   Jerry Eicke
Title: President and CEO                          Title:





With respect to the Placement Agent Agreement:

PLACEMENT AGENT:
NEWBRIDGE SECURITIES CORPORATION


By:  /s/ Guy S. Amico
     ---------------------------
Name:  Guy S. Amico
Title: President













                                        2
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 March 31, 2004 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: February 25, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries VI, Inc.
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
Two Jericho Plaza
Jericho, New York 11753-1683
Telephone: (516) 935-9000
Facsimile: (516) 935-9056





INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement
No. 33-15167 and No. 33-82172 of State Bancorp, Inc. on Forms S-8 of
our report dated January 24, 1997, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of State Bancorp, Inc. for the year ended December 31, 1996.




s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

March 28, 1997





DELOITTE TOUCHE
TOHMATSU
INTERNATIONAL
EXHIBIT 32.2
 CERTIFICATION OF
CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
OF OIL STATES INTERNATIONAL, INC.
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/ Bradley J. DodsonName:
    Bradley J. DodsonDate:
    May 8, 2009
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7203

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

SERGIO BARRIOS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, 

District Judge. (1:97-cr-00249-LMB-2)

Submitted: October 15, 2015 Decided: October 20, 2015

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Sergio Barrios, Appellant Pro Se. James L. Trump, Assistant 

United States Attorney, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Sergio Barrios appeals the district court’s order denying 

his motion for reduction of sentence under 18 U.S.C. 

§ 3582(c)(2) (2012). We have reviewed the record and find no 

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny Barrios’ motion for 

appointment of counsel and affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Barrios, No. 

1:97-cr-00249-LMB-2 (E.D. Va. filed July 24, 2015 & entered July 

27, 2015). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

AFFIRMED
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed June 3 , 2014.

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 12

- 01099

- CR

DUSTIN ZACHARY COLE , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee
On Appeal from the 351st District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1321571

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Dustin Zachary Cole appeals his conviction for credit card abuse

. On original submission, appellant argued that there wa s insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $ 374 reflected in the judgment . We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the specific amount of costs assessed

. Cole v. State , No. 14

- 12

- 0 1099

- CR; 2013 WL 604 5899 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] Nov. 14 , 2013) vacated and remanded , No. PD

- 1753

- 13 ;2

2014 WL 1512893 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its opinion in Johnson v. State , 423 S.W. 3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). The judgment includes an assessment of $ 374 in court costs. A supplemental clerk’s record was filed, which contains a certified, signed bill of costs listing $ 374 in court costs. We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered at tria l to prove each cost

. Johnson v. State , 423 S.W.3d at 390 . Traditional sufficiency

- of

- th e
- evidence standards of review do not apply. Id

. Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id . at 3 92

– 93 ; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. arts. 103.001, 103.006 . T he record supports the assessment of costs in this case because the record contains a bill of costs that contains each item of cost, is signed by a representative of the district clerk , who is entitled to receive payment of the costs, and is certified

. See Johnson , 423 S.W.3d at 393

. The trial court assessed $ 374 in costs against appellant. The sum of the itemized costs in the cost bill is $ 374

. There being no challenge to any specific cost

or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the costs assessed in the judgment. Id . at 396

. The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill of c osts. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after a criminal trial.”).3

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Frost and Justices Boyce and Jamison. Do Not Publish

— T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2( b).
Comdisco, Inc. and Subsidiaries                                    Exhibit 12.00

COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
(dollars in millions)
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                              For the years ended September 30,             
                                                        1998        1997         1996          1995         1994
                                                        ----        ----         ----          ----         ----    
<S>                                                     <C>         <C>          <C>           <C>          <C>    

Fixed charges
  Interest expense1<F1>                                 $329        $301         $267          $278         $266

  Approximate portion of
    rental expense representative
    of an interest factor                                  5           4            7            11           13
                                                        ----        ----         ----          ----         ----    

  Fixed charges                                          334         305          274           289          279

Earnings from operations
  before income taxes , net of preferred
  stock dividends                                        238         203          176           160           80
                                                        ----        ----         ----          ----         ----    
Earnings from operations before income taxes
 and fixed charges                                      $572        $508         $450          $449         $359
                                                        ====        ====         ====          ====         ====

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                      1.71        1.67         1.64          1.55         1.29 
                                                        ====        ====         ====          ====         ====

Rental expense:
  Equipment subleases                                   $  5        $  6         $ 14          $ 22         $ 30
  Office space, furniture, etc.                            9           7            8            10            8
                                                        ----        ----         ----          ----         ----    

    Total                                               $ 14        $ 13         $ 22          $ 32         $ 38
                                                        ====        ====         ====          ====         ====

    1/3 of rental expense                               $  5        $  4         $  7          $ 11         $ 13
                                                        ====        ====         ====          ====         ====

<FN>
<F1>Includes interest expense  incurred by  technology  services and included in
technology services expense on the consolidated statements of earnings.

</FN>
</TABLE>