alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Harry ROBERTS.

No. 56952.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 19, 1977.

Garland R. Rolling, Metairie, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harry F. Con-nick, Dist. Atty., William Wessel, Louise S. Korns, Asst. Dist. Attys., for plaintiff-ap-pellee.

On Remand from the Supreme Court of the United States

PER CURIAM:

Defendant Harry Roberts was charged by grand jury indictment with first degree murder in violation of La.R.S. 14:30. After trial by jury, he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to death. This Court affirmed his conviction and sentence on appeal, rejecting defendant’s contention that the death penalty provision of La.R.S. 14:30 was unconstitutional. 331 So.2d 11 (La.1976). The Supreme Court of the United States granted defendant’s petition and reversed our judgment “insofar as it upholds the death sentence upon petitioner.” *Roberts v. Louisiana,*431 U.S. 633, 97 S.Ct. 1993, 52 L.Ed.2d 637 (1977). The case was remanded to this Court with the following mandate:

> ON CONSIDERATION WHEREOF, it was ordered and adjudged on June 6, 1977, by this Court that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Louisiana in this cause be reversed with costs, insofar as it upholds the death sentence, and that this case be remanded to the Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana for further proceedings not inconsistent with the opinion of this Court.

> NOW, THEREFORE, THE CAUSE IS REMANDED to you in order that such proceedings may be had in the said cause, in conformity with the judgment of this Court above stated, as accord with right and justice, and the Constitution and laws of the United States, the said writ notwithstanding.

In accordance with this mandate, the death penalty imposed on defendant must be annulled and set aside. For the reasons set forth in *State*v. *Jenkins,*340 So.2d 157 (La.1976), we have concluded that the appropriate penalty to be imposed upon a valid conviction for first degree murder is the most severe constitutional penalty established by the legislature for criminal homicide at the time the offense was committed. La.R.S. 14:29 et seq. In the instant case, the offense was committed on February 26, 1974, at which time the most severe valid penalty for homicide was imprisonment at hard labor for life without eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence for a period of twenty years. See La.R.S. 14:30.1, as added by Acts 1973, No. Ill, § 1.

Accordingly for the reasons assigned in our original opinion, defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the death penalty is annulled and set aside, and the case remanded to the district court with instructions to resentence defendant to imprisonment at hard labor for life without eligibility for parole, probation or suspension of sentence for a period of twenty years.
**Exhibit
      32.1**





Certification
      of Officers Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in connection with the Quarterly Report on Form
      10-Q
      of Greater Community Bancorp (the "Company") for the six months ended June
      30,
      2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the "Report"), each of the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certifies, to the best knowledge and belief
      of
      the signatory, that the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section
      13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as applicable; and that
      the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Company.





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
      1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a separate disclosure
      document.





Date:
      August  9, 2007








*/s/
      Anthony M. Bruno, Jr.*


Anthony
      M. Bruno, Jr.


Chief
      Executive Officer








*/s/
      Stephen J. Mauger*


Stephen
      J. Mauger


Chief
      Financial Officer
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Louella ROBERTSON.

No. 61698.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

June 28, 1978.

Alton T. Moran, Director, Allen J. Ber-geron, Jr., App. Counsel, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., Ossie B. Brown, Dist. Atty., Marilyn C. Castle, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
ex104.htm


    Exhibit
      10.4

     

    
       

      Chinese/English
        Translation of Exhibit 10.3 - Taihu Biomass Energy Power Plant Project
        Investment Construction Agreement dated October 28, 2007

      (Is
        attached as PDF
        reference)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 170 (Wednesday, September 3, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46504]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23382]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Cancer Institute; Notice of Meeting President's Cancer 
Panel

    Pursuant to Section 10(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given at a meeting of 
the President's Cancer Panel.
    This meeting will be open to the public as indicated below, with 
attendance by the public limited to space available. Individuals who 
plan to attend and need special assistance, such as sign language 
interpretation or other reasonable accommodations, should notify Linda 
Quick-Cameron, Committee Management Officer, National Cancer Institute, 
Executive Plaza North, Room 609, 6130 Executive Blvd., MSC 7410, 
Bethesda, MD 20892-7410 (301/496-5708). A summary of the meeting and 
the roster of committee members will be provided upon request. Other 
information pertaining to the meeting may be obtained from the contact 
person indicated below.

    Committee Name: President's Cancer Panel.
    Date: September 29, 1997.
    Place: Holiday Inn--Bethesda, 8120 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, 
MD 20814.
    Open: 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: Concerns of Special Populations in the National Cancer 
Program: The Real Impact in the Reduction in Cancer Morality.
    Contact Person: Maureen O. Wilson, Ph.D., Executive Secretary, 
National Cancer Institute, Building 31, Room 4A48, Bethesda, MD 
20892-2473, Telephone: (301) 496-1148.

    Dated: August 26, 1997.
LaVeen Ponds,
Policy Analyst, NIH CMO.
[FR Doc. 97-23382 Filed 9-2-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
#### DICKINSON v. METROPOLITAN LIFE INS. CO.

No. 38093.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Jan. 1969.

Appeal dismissed without opinion.
Order entered March 20, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-13-00584-CV

WAYNE RAND, Appellant

V.

STEVE MCMASTERS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 11-13633

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By postcard dated January 24, 2014, we 

notified the Court Reporter that the reporter’s record was overdue. We directed the Court 

Reporter to file the record within thirty days. To date, the reporter’s record has not been filed. 

We ORDER Antonette Regor, Official Court Reporter for the 68th Judicial District 

Court, to file, within TEN DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record; (2) 

written verification that no hearings were recorded; or (3) written verification that appellant has 

not been found indigent and has not paid for the record. We notify appellant that if we receive 

verification he is not indigent and has not paid for the record, we will order the appeal submitted 

without the reporter’s record. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(c) 
We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order, by electronic transmission, to the 

following persons:

Antonette Regor

Official Court Reporter, 68th Judicial District Court 

/s/ CAROLYN WRIGHT

CHIEF JUSTICE
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 167 (Thursday, August 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45682-45683]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-22897]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Minerals Management Service


Notice and Agenda for Meeting of the Royalty Policy Committee of 
the Minerals Management Advisory Board

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of the Interior (Department) 
has established a Royalty Policy Committee, on the Minerals Management 
Advisory Board, to provide advice on the Department's management of 
Federal and Indian minerals leases, revenues, and other minerals 
related policies.
    Committee membership includes representatives from States, Indian 
Tribes and allottee organizations, minerals industry associations, the 
general public, and Federal Departments.
    At this fifth meeting, the Minerals Management Service (MMS) will 
be prepared to respond to questions concerning plans to implement 
previously approved reports.
    The Committee will consider progress reports and recommendations by 
the Net Receipts Sharing and Coal subcommittees. Additionally, the 
Committee will hear status reports from some of the current efforts 
being undertaken by the Royalty Management Program.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Thursday, September 25, 1997, 8:30 
a.m.-4:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Embassy Suites, Denver 
Southeast, 7525 East Hampden Avenue, Denver,

[[Page 45683]]

Colorado 80231, telephone number (303) 696-6644.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael A. Miller, Chief, Program 
Services Office, Royalty Management Program, Minerals Management 
Service, P.O. Box 25165, MS 3060, Denver, CO 80225-0165, telephone 
number (303) 231-3413, fax number (303) 231-3362.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The location and dates of future meetings 
will be published in the Federal Register.
    The meetings will be open to the public without advanced 
registration. Public attendance may be limited to the space available.
    Members of the public may make statements during the meeting, to 
the extent time permits, and file written statements with the Committee 
for its consideration.
    Written statements should be submitted to Mr. Michael A. Miller, at 
the address listed above. Minutes of Committee meetings will be 
available 10 days following each meeting for public inspection and 
copying at the Royalty Management Program, Building No. 85, Denver 
Federal Center, Denver, Colorado.
    These meetings are being held by the authority of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act, Pub. L. No. 92-463, 5 U.S.C. Appendix 1, and 
Office of Management and Budget Circular No. A-63, revised.

    Dated: August 22, 1997.
Donald T. Sant,
Acting Associate Director for Royalty Management.
[FR Doc. 97-22897 Filed 8-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-P
#### FIDELITY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, Appellant, v. Richard MORENO and Pilayo Moreno, Appellees.

Nos. 76-1695 and 76-1696.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 27, 1977.

Thornton, Dougherty, Conroy & Herndon and John Edward Herndon, Jr., Miami, for appellant.

West, Friesner & Goldman and Murray Goldman, Miami, for appellees.

Before BARKDULL, HAVERFIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

*39HUBBART, Judge.

By this appeal, we are asked to review a $68,500 money judgment rendered in a declaratory decree action in favor of an insured [Richard Moreno1] against his uninsured motorist carrier [Fidelity & Casualty Co. of New York] for injuries sustained by the insured in an automobile accident with an uninsured motorist. Fidelity appeals and contends *inter alia*that it is entitled to a set-off for the $5,000 personal injury protection benefits received by the insured from another insurance carrier [Resources Insurance Co.] as compensation for injuries sustained in the same automobile accident. We agree and reverse.

The law is clear that uninsured motorist insurance constitutes excess coverage and should not duplicate the same benefits available to the insured under the no-fault personal injury protection coverage. As such, the uninsured motorist carrier is entitled to a set-off for any such personal injury protection benefits received by its insured to be applied against the uninsured motorist claim. Stuyvesant Insurance Co. v. *Johnson,*307 So.2d 229 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975), cert. den. 316 So.2d 290 (Fla.1975); Section 627.727(1), Florida Statutes (1975). See *American Service Mutual Insurance Co. v. Wilson,*323 So.2d 645, 647 (Fla. 3d DCA 1975).

In the instant case, Fidelity was entitled to a set-off for the personal injury protection benefits received by Moreno to be applied against the uninsured motorist claim. We reverse the judgment appealed from and remand the cause with directions to give the appellant a $5,000 set-off from the total judgment awarded. In all other respects the judgment is affirmed.

Affirmed in part; reversed in part.

1

. Pilayo Moreno was the named insured on the Fidelity policy. Richard Moreno is covered as an insured under the terms of the Fidelity policy because he is the named insured’s son and was living with the named insured at the time of the accident.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 160 (Tuesday, August 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 44120-44121]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21937]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-445-000 and RP92-132-001]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 8, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets to become 
effective commencing September 1, 1992:

Eighth Revised Sheet No. 26
Original Sheet No. 26A.1

    Tennessee states that the filing is being made in response to the 
July 16, 1997 order in this docket, finding that the rate which 
Tennessee was charging Flagg Energy Development Corporation (Flagg) was 
not just and reasonable. Tennessee states that the purpose of this 
filing is to put into effect base rates for Flagg which reflect an 
alternative rate methodology. Tennessee states that the proposed base 
rates reflect a rolled-in rate methodology, with Flagg to be charged 
the demand equivalent of the FT-A base rates for a haul from Zone 1 to 
Zone 6.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. 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. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public

[[Page 44121]]

inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-21937 Filed 8-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Attachment 003 – PROCESS – TS11CM02

Page 1 of 1

SANITIZED
**-  Beltsville  \ BARC 
-  Animal & Natural Resources 
-  Animal Parasitic Diseases 
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:**PRRS HOST GENETICS CONSORTIUM:  A PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A CONSORTIUM TO STUDY THE ROLE OF HOST GENETICS AND RESISTANCE TO PRRS
**Location: Animal Parasitic Diseases**
												Project Number: 1265-32000-087-06Project Type:																				Reimbursable

Start Date: Jan 01, 2008End Date: Jun 01, 2009

**Objective:**Porcine respiratory and the reproductive syndrome virus (PRRSV) Host Genetics Consortium:  A proposal to develop a consortium to study the role of host genetics and resistance to PRRSV infection.1.  Use genotyping and phenotyping tools to determine if there are host genes controlling resistance/susceptibility to fPRRSV infection2.  Verify genetic variation in response to PRRSV, via improved health, survivability and growth3.  Identify relative importance of different phenotypes and their heritability, that predict respons to PRRSV infection.
**Approach:**This is a multi-year program project that is funded by a consortium representing the National Pork Board (NPB), USDA and private companies.  The consortium represents the first-of-its-kind approach to food animal infectious disease research.  Even though the budget is for one year it is expected that the NPB will suppport the project at a similar level for a total of three years.  Additional funds could be available from the USDA, CSREES, PRRS CAP2 grant.  Companies are expeccted to support the project at a level of $1 million for the three year period.  Most of the contributions will be in-kind.  Funding for the first year is in two parts.  The first is the infection and sample collection from pigs, which will be conducted at K-State.   The second part is the allocation of funding for two subcontracts.  One subcontrct will involve the creation of a relational database (Reecy at Iowa State); the second will be cytokine testing and sample cataloging (Lunney at ARS, USDA).
    Project TeamLunney, Joan  
Related National Programs Animal Health(103)  							Last Modified: 11/05/2008 		ARS Home |USDA.gov |Site Map |Policies and Links FOIA |Accessibility Statement |Privacy Policy |Nondiscrimination Statement |Information Quality |USA.gov |White House

**
<PAGE>

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 Alternate Energy Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the three month period ended March 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Blaine Froats, 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 to my knowledge:

1.   the Report fully complies with the requirement of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934: and

2.   the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.






/s/ Blaine Froats
Chief Financial Officer
May 17, 2004
Exhibit 32.2 

STATEMENT OF ACTINGCHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER UNDER 18 U.S.C.§1350 

        I,Anita K. Ho, the acting chief financial officer of Alliance Fiber Optic Products, Inc.(the “Company”), certify for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 oftitle 18 of the United States Code that, to the best of my knowledge, 

        (i)                 the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2006 (the "Report"), fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and

        (ii)                 the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
#### In re ESTATE of Anna F. C. MARTIN, Deceased. Anna M. ESLICK, Frederick M. Eslick, Hancock Bank, trustee v. Mary Frances DENT, Dr. B. B. Martin, Landman Teller, Pauline B. Latimer, James P. Biedenharn, et al.

No. 50620.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 13, 1978.

Eaton, Cottrell, Galloway & Lang, David Cottrell, Jr., Gulfport, for appellants.

Ward, Martin, Terry & Way, J. S. Terry, Teller & Teller, Landman Teller, Vicksburg, Gwin & Gwin, L. C. Gwin, Jr., Natchez, for appellees.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Harrison County; Frank W. Alexander, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., WALKER and BOWLING, JJ., and JOHN M. DUNNAM, Commissioner.

Affirmed.
September 29, 2016 

### VIA CERTIFIED MAIVRETURNRECEIPTREQUESTED U.S. Department ofTransportation Docket Management Facility West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE Washington, DC 20590 James M. White Director of Operations Compass Airlines, LLC 7500 Airline Dr., Ste 130 Minneapolis, MN 55450 612.713.6891-0 314.497.9836-C

Re: Request for Extension ofOE Exemption No. 10196 Docket Number: FAA-2010-1165
To Whom 

### It May Concern:
This letter is to request an extension ofExemption No. 10 196A which is set to expire January 31, 20 1 7. In Exemption No. 1 0 196A, Compass Airlines was granted an exemption from 14 CFR § 121.652(a) to the extent necessary to substitute crosswind component and braking action restriction, along with a requirement to utilize automatic landing and approach coupler (ALAC) equipment, at the destination and alternate airports in place ofthe existing restrictions to decision height (DH) and visibility minimums of Category I precision approaches for pilots in command (PIC) who have not yet accumulated 100 hours (50, ifreducible) in their aircraft type. Since the time ofthe exemption, Compass has abided by the conditions and limitations described therein and the exemption has not previously been superseded or rescinded. An extension ofthe exemption is necessary to Compass ' operation. Any lapse ofthe extension will result in significant delays in Compass' pilot training program which will result in staffing issues that will, in tum, affect Compass ' entire operation. Further, Compass does not seek to change the conditions and limitations ofthe current exemption which was originally granted in January, 2011 and extended in January, 2013 and again in January, 2015

. This exemption has been in use for nearly six (6) years with no known compromise of safety. The renewal ofthis exemption is not a controversial issue. Rather, the existence ofthe exemption is well known and widely accepted

. Good cause exists for not publishing a summary ofthe request for extension in the Federal Register because the requested extension ofexen1ption would not set a precedent, and any delay in action on this request would be detrimental to Compass' operations

. Thank you for your consideration ofour request for extension ofthis exemption. Ifyou require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (612) 713-6891.

**Re**
**~** tfully,

.

**~**



## .:~ **r£z~**

Director ofOperations