alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 157 (Thursday, August 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 43524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OA97-684-000]


Otter Tail Power Company; Notice of Filing

August 8, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 14, 1997, Otter Tail Power Company (OTP) 
tendered for filing on behalf of itself a compliance filing reflecting 
tariff changes set forth in FERC Order No. 888-A issued March 3, 1997. 
The changes agreed to in a settlement with the FERC in Docket No. OA96-
192-000 (approved March 25, 1997) are included in the compliance 
filing.
    OTP states that copies of this filing have been served on the 
Minnesota Public Utilities Commission, the North Dakota Public Service 
Commission, the South Dakota Public Service Commission and the 
Wisconsin Public Service Commission and all customers which are 
requirements customers.
    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 385.211 and 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before August 19, 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. 97-21474 Filed 8-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Animal & Natural Resources 
-  Animal Improvement Programs 
Printable VersionE-mail this pageThis site onlyAll ARS Advanced Search UBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">	You are here: 						Research / 								**Research Project:**The National Dairy Genetic Evaluation Program
**Location: Animal Improvement Programs**
**2005 Annual Report**
**4d.Progress report.**													This report serves to document research conducted under a memorandum of understanding (MOU) between ARS and the Council on Dairy Cattle Breeding (Reynoldsburg, OH), which is scheduled to terminate on December 31, 2005. This MOU replaced MOU 58-1265-OM-004 "National Dairy Genetic Evaluation Program," which reached its 5-year limitation on December 31, 2004. Additional details of research can be found in the report for the parent project 1265-31000-085-00D "Improving Genetic Prediction of Economic Merit of Dairy Animals"; research conducted under the agreement is related to all of the objectives reported in the parent project. Changes needed for more effective operation of genetic research programs and attainment of expected quality standards in the future are being discussed with the dairy industry so that a long-term MOU can be developed by December 31, 2005.						
    Project TeamNorman, H  - *Duane* 
Project Annual Reports FY 2008 FY 2007 FY 2006 FY 2005 Publications  Publications 
Related National Programs Food Animal Production(101)  							Last Modified: 05/12/2009 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 164 (Monday, August 25, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 44928]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22068]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH104-1B; FRL-5877-8]


Approval and Promulgation of State Implementation Plan; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is 
proposing to approve a June 10, 1997, request from Ohio, for a State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) maintenance plan revision for the following 
areas: Toledo area (including Lucas and Wood counties), the Cleveland-
Akron-Lorain area (including Lorain, Cuyahoga, Lake, Ashtabula, Geauga, 
Medina, Summit and Portage counties), and the Dayton-Springfield area 
(including Montgomery, Clark, Greene, and Miami counties). The 
maintenance plan revisions are requesting to allocate to the mobile 
source emissions budget for transportation conformity a portion of the 
existing ``Safety Margins.'' The safety margin is the difference 
between the attainment inventory level of the total emissions and the 
projected levels of the total emissions in the final year of the 
maintenance plan.

DATES: Written comments on this proposed action must be received by 
September 24, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Scott Hamilton, Environmental 
Scientist, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct 
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register. Copies of the requests are available for inspection at the 
following address: (Please contact Scott Hamilton at (312) 353-4775 
before visiting the Region 5 office.) USEPA Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hydrocarbons, 
Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Nitrogen Oxides, Transportation 
conformity.

    Dated: August 8, 1997.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 97-22068 Filed 8-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
No. 9531.

#### Mahoney *v.*The Scottish Union & National Insurance Co.

(Decided May 15, 1906.)

Error to Superior Court of Cincinnati.

*Mr. A. J. Cunningham*and *Mr. J. J. Acomb,*for plaintiff in error.

.. *Mr. J. H. Cabell*and *Mr. J. L. Kohl,*for defendant in error.

Judgment, affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
State Facts by FAX (94015)

-  README.TXTak.txtal.txtar.txtaz.txtca.txtco.txtct.txtdc.txtde.txtfl.txtga.txthi.txtia.txtid.txtil.txtin.txtks.txtky.txtla.txtma.txtmd.txtme.txtmi.txtmn.txtmo.txtms.txtmt.txtnc.txtnd.txtne.txtnh.txtnj.txtnm.txtnv.txtny.txtoh.txtok.txtor.txtpa.txtri.txtsc.txtsd.txttn.txttx.txtus.txtut.txtva.txtvt.txtwa.txtwi.txtwv.txtwy.txt
NO. 07-03-0479-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL D

FEBRUARY 5, 2004

______________________________

ARTHUR GOODSON, APPELLANT

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

_________________________________

FROM THE 364TH DISTRICT COURT OF LUBBOCK COUNTY;

NO. 99-429492; HON. BRADLEY UNDERWOOD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before QUINN and REAVIS and CAMPBELL, JJ.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Arthur Goodson attempts to appeal a judgment revoking probation granted after his

conviction for delivery of a controlled substance. His notice of appeal was filed in the trial

court November 7, 2003. A copy of the judgment attached to the notice of appeal and his

docketing statement indicates sentence was imposed November 29, 2000. 

Our appellate jurisdiction is triggered through a timely notice of appeal. Olivo v.

State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex.Crim.App.1996). Rule of Appellate Procedure 26.2(a)
2

requires a notice of appeal be filed within 30 days after the day sentence is imposed, or

within 90 days after imposition of the sentence if a timely motion for new trial is filed. In

either event, appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely.

The appropriate vehicle for seeking an out-of-time appeal is by writ of habeas corpus

from the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals pursuant to Code of Criminal Procedure Article

11.07 (Vernon Supp. 2004). Portley v. State, 89 S.W.3d 188, 190 (Tex.App.--Texarkana

2002, no pet.). Because appellant’s notice of appeal was untimely, this court has no

jurisdiction to take any action but to dismiss the appeal. Slaton v. State, 981 S.W.2d 208,

210 (Tex.Crim.App. 1998); see Olivo, 918 S.W.2d at 522. 

Consequently, we dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction.

James T. Campbell

 Justice

Do not publish.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1558 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1558

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to protect family members 
of filers from disclosing sensitive information in a public filing and 
  to extend for 4 years the authority to redact financial disclosure 
        statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.

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

SECTION 1. PROTECTION OF FAMILY MEMBERS.

    Section 105(b)(3) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 U.S.C. 
App.) is amended--
            (1) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ``or a family member 
        of that individual'' after ``that individual''; and
            (2) in subparagraph (B)(i), by inserting ``or a family 
        member of that individual'' after ``the report''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF PUBLIC FILING REQUIREMENT.

    Section 105(b)(3)(E) of the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (5 
U.S.C. App.) is amended by striking ``2005'' each place it appears and 
inserting ``2009''.

            Passed the Senate November 10, 2005.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                                S. 1558

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to protect family members 
of filers from disclosing sensitive information in a public filing and 
  to extend for 4 years the authority to redact financial disclosure 
        statements of judicial employees and judicial officers.
```
#### Ringo SANCHEZ, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 76-1667.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 22, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order revoking the appellant’s probation is affirmed but this case is remanded for resentencing of appellant specifying the amount of credit for time served. The appellant does not have to be present at re-sentencing.

HOBSON, Acting C. J., and McNULTY and GRIMES, JJ., concur.
**Farm Credit System Operating Statistics (94011)**
<PAGE>

                            EXHIBIT 10.8

<PAGE>

                              PROMISSORY NOTE

$3,865,390.00                                             Minneapolis, Minnesota
                                                                  March 27, 1997

     FOR VALUE RECEIVED, the undersigned Nortech Systems Incorporated
("Maker"), a Minnesota corporation, hereby promises to pay to the order of
Communications Systems, Inc. ("Payee"), a Minnesota corporation, at Hector,
Minnesota, or at such other place as may be designated from time to time in
writing by the holder thereof, the principal sum of Three Million Eight
Hundred Sixty-Five Thousand Three Hundred Ninety Dollars ($3,865,390) with
simple interest on the outstanding principal balance beginning on November 4,
1996, at a rate equal to the prime or reference rate established from time to
time by First Bank Minneapolis.

     Principal in the amount of One Hundred Sixty Thousand Dollars
($160,000.00) or more per installment shall be payable semiannually
commencing May 1, 1997, and continuing on the first day of every November and
May thereafter for a total of five (5) years, at which time all remaining
principal and accrued interest, if not sooner paid, shall be paid in full.

     This Note is given to evidence the unpaid balance of the purchase price
owed by Maker to Payee for the purchase of the assets of Payee, pursuant to
the terms of that certain Asset Purchase Agreement (the "Asset Purchase
Agreement") dated 1996, between Maker and Payee. This Note is subject to and
governed by the terms and provisions of the Asset Purchase Agreement,
including rights of offset as set forth therein. This Note is secured by that
certain Security Agreement of even date herewith.

     Each payment (including prepayments, if made) hereunder shall be applied
first to payment of accrued interest, and the balance to payment of
principal. Prepayments can be made at any time, and from time to time, at the
election of Maker, without penalty. If default is made in the payment of any
installment of this Note, and such payment is not made within fifteen (15)
days after notice from the Note holder of non-payment, the Note holder may
declare the entire unpaid principal balance of this Note and all accrued
interest due and payable without further notice.

     In the event that the holder hereof shall institute any action for the
enforcement or collection of this Note, there shall be immediately due from
the Maker, in addition to the unpaid balance, all reasonable costs and
expenses of said action, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has caused this Note to be executed
on the date first above written.

                            NORTECH SYSTEMS INCORPORATED

                            By /s/ Q. E. Finkelson
                              -----------------------------
                              Its President & CEO
                                  -------------------------
254 La. 518

#### JIM-ROY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Inc. and Hub City Investments, Inc. v. James D. PARKERSON.

No. 49741.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 13, 1969.

In re: James D. Parkerson applying for writs of certiorari and prohibition.

The petition of the relator in the above entitled and numbered case having been duly considered,

It is ordered that a writ of certiorari issue herein, directing the Honorable Carrol L. Spell, Judge of the 15th Judicial District, Court for the Parish of Lafayette, to transmit to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, on or before the 8th day of October, 1969, the record in duplicate, or a certified copy of the record in duplicate, of the proceedings complained of by the relator herein, to the end that the validity of said proceedings may be ascertained.

It is further ordered that the aforesaid Jiidge of said Court and the respondents through their attorney shall show cause, in this court on the date aforesaid, at 11 o’clock A.M., why the relief prayed for in the petition of the relator should not be granted.

It is further ordered that, in the meantime and until the further orders of this court all proceedings against the relator in said 15th Judicial District Court shall be stayed and suspended.

Writs granted with a stay order. 224 So. 2d 539.
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, John W. Peters, certify that:

1.  I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Suncrest Global
Energy Corp.;

2.  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue
statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to
make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements
were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly
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 small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.

4.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) 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
small business issuer 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 small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made 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 small business issuer'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; and

    (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5.  The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have
disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over
financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit
committee of small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing
the equivalent function):

    (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 small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and

    (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.




                              /s/ John W. Peters
Date: May 13, 2004            ________________________________________________
                              John W. Peters, Principal Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 23

          We  consent to  the  incorporation by  reference in  Registration
          Statement Nos. 33-23232,  33-34384, 33-43910, 33-50040,  and 333-
          18661  on Form S-3 and in Registration Statement Nos. 2-90684, 2-
          94306, 33-0840, 33-17698, 33-25628, 33-36851, 33-41720, 33-56302,
          33-73194,  33-57735, 333-01941, and 333-22827  on Form S-8 of our
          reports dated November 13, 1997, appearing in and incorporated by
          reference in this Annual  Report on Form 10-K of  Ballard Medical
          Products for the year ended September 30, 1997.


          Deloitte & Touche LLP
          Salt Lake City, Utah
          December 11, 1997
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<NAME> INSIGHT COMMUNICATIONS OF CENTRAL OHIO, LLC
<CIK> 0001070242
<MULTIPLIER>                               1

<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                                   6,708,553
<SECURITIES>                                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                            2,705,947
<ALLOWANCES>                                               451,000
<INVENTORY>                                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                         9,580,847
<PP&E>                                                  78,798,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                          46,898,251
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                          41,967,614
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                   14,405,659
<BONDS>                                                          0
<COMMON>                                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                            0
<PREFERRED>                                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                                            (144,718,552)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                            41,967,614
<SALES>                                                 47,955,737
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                        47,955,737
<CGS>                                                   39,827,898
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                           39,827,898
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                        (362,248)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                          7,765,591
<INCOME-TAX>                                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                      7,765,591
<DISCONTINUED>                                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                  0
<CHANGES>                                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                             7,765,591
<EPS-BASIC>                                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    0




</TABLE>
No. 00-6971.

#### Overson *v.*Ayers, Warden, et al.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
# FedMall - Federal Mall DLA Orders

/ Published Feb. 7, 2022

## General Information

Federal Mall (FedMall) is a web based online ordering platform meant to provide a full-service e-Commerce site to find and acquire off the shelf, finished goods and services from the commercial marketplace and government sources for the Defense Department and other State and Federal agencies. FedMall optimizes the effectiveness and efficiency of the Department of Defense (DOD) Supply Chain.

## Course Description

How do I research my DLA managed requisitions? DLA Orders is the go-to tool where users will become familiar with the system functionalities. The course exposes users to methods on how to run queries using NSN/NIINs or Requisition Numbers. Students will receive hands-on practice while learning how to run queries, check the supply status of orders, view stock levels, review Stock-Out Reports, view item notes and conduct shipment tracking to find answers to "Where Is My Stuff". A FedMall account is required prior to attending the class in order to participate in the hands-on learning. 8 Hour Course.

## Target Audience

DLA, military services, Other Government Agencies, and United States (U.S.) Government sponsored contractors doing business with the U.S. Government.

## Delivery Methods

Classroom Instruction (4 Hours)Webinar (2 Hours)

## 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