alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45273]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22565]

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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration

Importer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated April 24, 1997, and published in the Federal 
Register on May 21, 1997 (62 FR 27770), Research Biochemicals, Inc., 
Limited Partnership, Attn: Richard Milius, 1-3 Strathmore Road, Natick, 
Massachusetts 01760, made application to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration to be registered as an importer of the basic classes of 
controlled substances listed below:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    Drug                               Schedule         
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Methaqualone (2565)........................  I                          
Ibogaine (7260)............................  I                          
Tetrahydrocannabinols (7370)...............  I                          
Bufotenine (7433)..........................  I                          
Dimethyltryptamine (7435)..................  I                          
Etorphine (except Hcl) (9056)..............  I                          
Methylphenidate (1724).....................  II                         
Pentobarbital (2270).......................  II                         
Diprenorphine (9058).......................  II                         
Etorphine Hydrochloride (9059).............  II                         
Diphenoxylate (9170).......................  II                         
Metazocine (9240)..........................  II                         
Methadone (9250)...........................  II                         
Fentanyl (9801)............................  II                         
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in Title 21, United States Code, Section 823(a) and 
determined that the registration of Research Biochemicals to import the 
listed controlled substances is consistent with the public interest and 
with United States obligations under international treaties, 
conventions, or protocols in effect on May 1, 1971, at this time. 
Therefore, pursuant to Section 1008(a) of the Controlled Substances 
Import and Export Act and in accordance with Title 21, Code of Federal 
Regulations, Section 1301.34, the above firm is granted registration as 
an importer of the basic classes of controlled substances listed above.

    Dated: July 21, 1997.
John H. King,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. 97-22565 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-M
```
No. 54402.

#### Damascus Trading Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 135174-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
----

**Exhibit      32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONS      OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER**

**PURSUANT      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, **
**AS      ADOPTED**

**PURSUANT      TO SECTION 906 OF 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;                and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | To                my knowledge, the information contained in the Report fairly presents,                in                all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations                of the Company as of and for the period covered by the                Report. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  | March                15, 2007 |   | By:  | /s/                Barry W. Chandler            |
|--------|-------------------------------|--------|-----------|-------------------------------------------------|
|   |                          |   |      | Barry                W. Chandler, President and |
|   |                          |   |      | Principal                Executive Officer      |

----
No. 9101.

#### The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co. *v.*Arndt.

(Decided March 13, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Seneca county.

*Messrs. McCauley & Weller,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Willis Bacon,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 44661]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22322]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-3233-000]


The Toledo Edison Company; Notice of Filing

August 18, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 8, 1997, The Toledo Edison Company 
tendered for filing an amendment in the above-referenced docket.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 285.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 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. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-22322 Filed 8-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
II 

112TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2267 

To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 29, 2012 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To reauthorize the Hudson River Valley National Heritage 

Area. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. REAUTHORIZATION OF HUDSON RIVER VALLEY 

4 NATIONAL HERITAGE AREA. 

5 Section 910 of the Hudson River Valley National 

6 Heritage Area Act of 1996 (16 U.S.C. 461 note; Public 

7 Law 104–333) is amended by striking ‘‘2012’’ and insert8 ing ‘‘2022’’. 

Æ 


srobinson on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
No. 9445.

#### The Columbus, Buckeye Lake & Newark Traction Co. *v.*Henderlick.

(Decided May 8, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Franklin county.

*Messrs. Williams & Taylor,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Edward G. Turner,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew and Spear, JJ., concur.
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





The undersigned hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year
ended December 31, 2007 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and the information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of SouthCrest Financial Group,
Inc.








This
31st
day of March, 2008.








/s/ Douglas J. HerthaDouglas
      J. HerthaChief
      Financial Officer
file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0325.txt

-----Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/15/2010 09:26PM ----- To: Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov From: Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US
Date: 02/08/2010 04:14PM Subject: resolution of ULSD benefits issue

Hi Cortney, Regarding the questions raised about the appropriateness of estimating emission reductions and benefits from the use of ULSD, we have discussed the issue and determined that due to the uncertainty regarding the number of engines that would switch to ULSD based on our rule, we will discuss the issue more qualitatively. Below is the suggested language for the RIA and preamble, let me know what you think.

Here is suggested language: In this analysis, we have not quantified the benefits attributable to the SO2 reductions that would occur as a result of these engines switching to ultra-low sulfur fuel (ULSD). Although we are confident that some SO2 reductions would occur as a result of this rule, we are unable to estimate the percentage of engines that may switch to ULSD in the absence of this rule. As a PM2.5 precursor, these SO2 emission reductions would lead to fewer PM2.5- related health effects. Because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the attributable SO2 reductions and to avoid the appearance of double-counting, we have chosen to not include these estimates in any of the results tables or graphics in this RIA. If without this rule none of the affected engines would use ULSD, then we estimate the monetized PM2.5-related health co-benefits from SO2 reductions would be $120 to $290 million in 2013 (2008$, 3% discount rate). If all of the affected engines would use ULSD regardless of the rule, then the
monetized co-benefits would be zero.

Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711

Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov

file:///C|/Documents%20and%20Settings/aassem01/Desktop/For%20Rendering/EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0708-DRAFT-0325.txt2/19/2010 12:50:38 PM
1

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38095

STATE OF IDAHO,

Plaintiff-Respondent,

v.

TONY GREG CHAVEZ,

Defendant-Appellant.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

2011 Unpublished Opinion No. 389

Filed: March 15, 2011

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED

OPINION AND SHALL NOT

BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Seventh Judicial District, State of Idaho, 

Jefferson County. Hon. Gregory S. Anderson, District Judge. 

Order revoking probation and requiring execution of unified five-year sentence 

with one-year determinate term for possession of methamphetamine, affirmed.

Jason R. Rammell, Rexburg, for appellant. 

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney 

General, Boise, for respondent. 

______________________________________________

Before LANSING, Judge; GUTIERREZ, Judge;

and MELANSON, Judge

PER CURIAM

Tony Greg Chavez pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine. I.C. § 37-2732(c)(1). 

The district court imposed a unified five-year sentence with a one-year determinate term, 

suspended the sentence and placed Chavez on probation. Subsequently, Chavez

admitted to violating the terms of the probation, and the district court consequently revoked 

probation and ordered execution of the original sentence but retained jurisdiction. Chavez

appeals, contending that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation and 

imposing sentence.

It is within the trial court’s discretion to revoke probation if any of the terms and 

conditions of the probation have been violated. I.C. §§ 19-2603, 20-222; State v. Beckett, 122 

Idaho 324, 325, 834 P.2d 326, 327 (Ct. App. 1992); State v. Adams, 115 Idaho 1053, 1054, 772 
2

P.2d 260, 261 (Ct. App. 1989); State v. Hass, 114 Idaho 554, 558, 758 P.2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 

1988). In determining whether to revoke probation a court must examine whether the probation 

is achieving the goal of rehabilitation and consistent with the protection of society. State v. 

Upton, 127 Idaho 274, 275, 899 P.2d 984, 985 (Ct. App. 1995); Beckett, 122 Idaho at 325, 834 

P.2d at 327; Hass, 114 Idaho at 558, 758 P.2d at 717. The court may, after a probation violation 

has been established, order that the suspended sentence be executed or, in the alternative, the 

court is authorized under Idaho Criminal Rule 35 to reduce the sentence. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 

326, 834 P.2d at 328; State v. Marks, 116 Idaho 976, 977, 783 P.2d 315, 316 (Ct. App. 1989). A 

decision to revoke probation will be disturbed on appeal only upon a showing that the trial court 

abused its discretion. Beckett, 122 Idaho at 326, 834 P.2d at 328.

Applying the foregoing standards, and having reviewed the record in this case, we cannot 

say that the district court abused its discretion in revoking probation or in ordering execution of 

Chavez’s original sentence without modification. Therefore, the order revoking probation and 

directing execution of Chavez’s previously suspended sentence is affirmed.
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 June 30, 2007 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 4, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, Treasurer

Big Sky Industries IV, Inc.
* Local Rule 47.5.1 provides: "The publication of

opinions that have no precedential value and merely decide

particular cases on the basis of well-settled principles of law

imposes needless expense on the public and burdens on the legal

profession." Pursuant to that rule, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 95-20491

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MORGAN JOHNSON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

JOHNNY KLEVENHAGEN, Sheriff;

K. W. BERRY, Captain;

JOHN DOE, Lieutenant,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

(H-93-CV-2424)

_________________________________________________________________

December 7, 1995

Before DAVIS, BARKSDALE, and DeMOSS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Morgan E. Johnson filed a civil rights complaint under 42

U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that, while an inmate in the Harris County

jail, he was denied due process in connection with a disciplinary

hearing. See Johnson v. Klevenhagen, No. 92-2832 (5th Cir. July

26, 1994). 

On remand, the district court properly awarded summary

judgment to the defendants because Johnson did not present specific
- 2 -

facts showing the existence of a genuine issue for trial. E.g.,

Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075 (5th Cir. 1994) (en

banc); Sandin v. Conner, ___ U.S. ___, 115 S. Ct. 2293, 2297-2302

(1995). The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying

Johnson's motion for appointment of counsel, Ulmer v. Chancellor,

691 F.2d 209, 212 (5th Cir. 1982); and it did not err by not

conducting a hearing pursuant to Spears v. McCotter, 766 F.2d 179

(5th Cir. 1985). Finally, Johnson had all the notice to which he

was entitled prior to the entry of summary judgment. Martin v.

Harrison County Jail, 975 F.2d 192, 193 (5th Cir. 1992).

The summary judgment is, therefore,

AFFIRMED.
No. 9746.

#### Wilhelm *v.*Baum.

(Decided February 27, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lucas county.

*Messrs. Swayne, Hayes, Fuller & Tyler,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Charles K. Friedman*and *Messrs. Marshall <& Fraser,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 165 (Tuesday, August 26, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 45237]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22585]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Availability of Patent for Exclusive, Partially Exclusive or 
Nonexclusive Licenses

AGENCY: Army Research Laboratory, DOD.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces the general availability 
of exclusive, partially exclusive or non-exclusive licenses under U.S. 
Patent No. 4,867,957, issued 19 Sept. 1989, entitled ``Process for 
Making Polyphosphaszenes''. Licenses shall comply with 35 U.S.C. 209 
and 37 CFR part 404.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Michael D. Rausa, U.S. Army Research Laboratory, Office of Research and 
Technology Applications, ATTN: AMSRL-CS-TT/Bldg. 434, Aberdeen Proving 
Ground, Maryland 21005-5425, Telephone: (410) 278-5028.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: None.

Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-22585 Filed 8-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
PRIVATE LAW 106–18—NOV. 22, 2000

Private Law 106–18

106th Congress

An Act

For the relief of Mina Vahedi Notash.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENT STATUS FOR MINA VAHEDI

NOTASH.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of

section 201 of the Immigration and Nationality Act, Mina Vahedi

Notash shall be eligible for issuance of an immigrant visa or for

adjustment of status to that of an alien lawfully admitted for

permanent residence upon filing an application for issuance of

an immigrant visa under section 204 of such Act or for adjustment

of status to lawful permanent resident.

(b) ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS.—If Mina Vahedi Notash enters

the United States before the filing deadline specified in subsection

(c), he or she shall be considered to have entered and remained

lawfully and shall, if otherwise eligible, be eligible for adjustment

of status under section 245 of the Immigration and Nationality

Act as of the date of the enactment of this Act.

(c) DEADLINE FOR APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Subsections (a) and (b) shall apply only if the application for issuance

of an immigrant visa or the application for adjustment of status

is filed with appropriate fees within 2 years after the date of

the enactment of this Act.

Nov. 22, 2000

[S. 869]

PRIVATE LAW 106–18—NOV. 22, 2000

(d) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBER.—Upon the

granting of an immigrant visa or permanent residence to Mina

Vahedi Notash, the Secretary of State shall instruct the proper

officer to reduce by 1, during the current or next following fiscal

year, the total number of immigrant visas that are made available

to natives of the country of the alien’s birth under section 203(a)

of the Immigration and Nationality Act or, if applicable, the total

number of immigrant visas that are made available to natives

of the country of the alien’s birth under section 202(e) of such

Act.

Approved November 22, 2000.
#### Barbara Ann STETZLER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 68-305.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 24, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 9, 1969.

Pozen, Gold & Gold, Miami, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Harold Mendelow, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON and HENDRY, JJ., and LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

*19LOPEZ, AQUILINO, Jr., Associate Judge.

Reversed and remanded for new trial on authority of Garcia v. State of Florida, Fla.App., 226 So.2d 17, decided this date and being the same case.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

SAMANTHA CHEZ-MAGBANUA,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D19-3186

[August 13, 2020]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, 

Broward County; Barbara McCarthy, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

18003070CF10A.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Virginia Murphy, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

No appearance for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

GROSS, GERBER and ARTAU, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
#### Ira LIVINGSTON and Lillian Livingston, Appellants, v. Leah Gold FEIN, Appellee.

No. 77-934.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 30, 1978.

*26Robert A. Shupack, North Miami Beach, for appellants.

Sobo & Wellens, Fort Lauderdale and Lee B. Gartner, Jacksonville, for appellee.

Before HENDRY, HUBBART and KE-HOE, JJ.

KEHOE, Judge.

Appellants, defendants below, appeal an order denying their motion to set aside a default and to vacate a final judgment entered against them in an action for liquidated damages.

Our review of the record leads us to the conclusion that appellants failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence the invalidity of the service of process in this cause. Without such proof, the trial court had no basis upon which to set aside the default judgment. See, e. g., *Winky’s Inc.*v. *Francis,*229 So.2d 903 (Fla. 3d DCA 1970); and *Mitchell v. Brown,*114 So.2d 178 (Fla. 1st DCA 1959). Accordingly, the order appealed is affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 156 (Wednesday, August 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21390]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------@


DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Occupational Safety and Health Administration
[Docket No. ICR-97-6]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of OMB 
Approval

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is 
announcing that a collection of information regarding the reporting of 
occupational fatality or multiple hospitalization incidents has been 
approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995. This document announces the OMB 
approval number and expiration date.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen Newell, Office of Statistics, Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Room N3507, 200 Constitution 
Avenue, NW, Washington, D.C. 20210, telephone (202) 219-6463.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of March 13, 1997 
(62 FR 11928), the Agency announced its intent to request renewal of 
its current OMB approval for 29 CFR 1904.8, Reporting of Fatality or 
Multiple Hospitalization Incidents. In accordance with the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), OMB has renewed its 
approval for the information collection and assigned OMB control number 
1218-0007. The approval expires 7/31/2000. Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b), an 
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless the collection displays 
a valid control number.

    Dated: August 5, 1997.
Gregory R. Watchman,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Labor
[FR Doc. 97-21390 Filed 8-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M