alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47485]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23815]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-1-82-000]


Viking Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Filing

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 27, 1997, Viking Gas Transmission 
Company (``Viking'') tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1 the following tariff sheets to 
become effective October 1, 1997:

Ninth Revised Sheet No. 6
First Revised Sheet No. 6A

    The purpose of this filing is to increase Viking's Annual Charge 
Adjustment (``ACA'') from $0.0020 per dekatherm to $0.0022 per 
dekatherm as permitted by Sections 154.204 and 154.402 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations, 18 CFR Secs. 154.205, 154.402 
(1997). Viking's authority to make this filing is set forth in Article 
XIX of the General Terms and Conditions of Viking's FERC Gas Tariff, 
First Revised Volume No. 1.
    Viking states that copies of the filing have been mailed to all of 
its jurisdictional customers and to affected state regulatory 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or the protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 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.
Lois Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23815 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

February 27, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 132484 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 132484 COA: 264337 Ottawa CC: 01-040310-CC ROOKS FAMILY TRUST, J.F. GIRARD ROOKS, and JEANNE A. ROOKS, Co-Trustees, Defendants-Appellants,

and

UNION BANK & TRUST CO., N.A., and PATER BROTHERS FARMS, a/k/a JOHN PATER, Defendants.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 5, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0220 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

February 27, 2007

Clerk
#### SOUTHEASTERN PROPANE GAS. d/b/a Indian River Gas Co. v. SPECIAL DISABILITY FUND OF the FLORIDA INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION.

No. 38433.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                          37,407
<SECURITIES>                                    18,421
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,669
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,555
<INVENTORY>                                      9,811
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               102,319
<PP&E>                                          82,455
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,599
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 181,597
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           28,267
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           230
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,384
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   181,597
<SALES>                                        161,455
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               161,455
<CGS>                                          117,827
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  117,827
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,704
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  76
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 29,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                     7,842
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             21,158
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    21,158
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.89<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.39
<FN>
<F1>For Purpose of this Exhibit, Primary means Basic.
</FN>


</TABLE>
# Agency employees at Iwakuni aid transition to improved medical care

/ Published June 1, 2018
MCAS Iwakuni, Japan,
p.1 

OAR Box 1767 

Prepped by Ollie Stewart 

Document Number: 

51) VII-E-1 

Docket Number: 

A-90-07 

Printed 11/26/200812:10:32 PM Sheet 51 of 53 
P.2 

^1^\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

/l-90-07 

HL~S-oi 

SE 

\ o ? • 

" "_ 

December 4 1996 OFFICE OF 

i_/ecernuci <•*., I^ U AIR AND RADIATION 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Phone Conversations with Leroy Watson of the National Biodiesel Board (NBB) 

FROM: Joseph R. Sopata, Chemist -jo,--..-*. • •-,*,.•;-•-— 

OMS\Fuels & Energy Division 

TO: EPA Air Docket A-90-07 

On December 3, 1996,1 had two phone conversations with Leroy Watson of the National 

Biodiesel Board (NBB). The purpose of the phone conversation was to find out if vehicles 

utilizing biodiesel blends in the context of the health testing requirements for 211(b) needed to be 

removed from their original certified configuration. 

On December 3, 1996, Leroy Watson from the National Biodiesel Board indicated to me 

by telephone that he polled all the experts in the biodiesel field that he could get ahold of and they 

all felt that the use of B-20, B-50 and B-100 does not require the operator to remove the vehicle 

from its original certified configuration. The only minor change that may be required would be to 

change the elastomers in the engine. Apparently some elastomers that have been exposed to 

diesel swell when exposed to biodiesel blends, so fresh elastomers need to be replaced in some 

engines when this situation arises. Otherwise no other changes are necessary. 

Recycled/Recyclable . Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Recycled Paper (40% Poslconsumer)
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**Certification Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350(As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)**

 

I, Thomas J. Cowee, Chief Financial Officer of IESICorporation (the “Company”), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that, to my knowledge:

 

1.          TheQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period endedSeptember 30, 2003 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| Date:  November 13, 2003 |
|------------------------------------|
|                               |
|                               |
|                               | /s/ THOMAS J. COWEE |   |
|                               | Thomas J. Cowee |
|                               | Chief Financial Officer |

 

**The foregoingcertification is being furnished (and not filed) solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350.**

 

----
No. 00-7223.

#### Rodriguez *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Candace J. DAVEY v. LOUISIANA HEALTH SERVICE AND INDEMNITY COMPANY.

No. 61994.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 5, 1978.

In re: Louisiana Health Service and Indemnity Company, applying for certiorari or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit. Parish of Orleans. 357 So.2d 1170.

Writ denied.

SANDERS, C. J., and SUMMERS and MARCUS, JJ., would grant the writ.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsAn investigation of the causes of failure of flexible thermal protection materials in an aerodynamic environmentTests of small panels of advanced flexible reusable surface insulation (AFRSI) were conducted using a small wind tunnel that was designed to simulate Space Shuttle Orbiter entry mean-flow and pulsating aerodynamic loads. The wind tunnel, with a 3 inch wide by 1.75 inch high by 7.5 inch long test section, proved to be capable of continuous flow at dynamic pressures q near 580 psf with fluctuating pressures over 2 psi RMS at an excitation frequency f sub E of 200 Hz. For this investigation, however, the wind tunnel was used to test entry-temperature preconditioned and heat-cleaned AFRSI at q = 280 psf, Prms was nearly equal to 1.2 psi and f sub E = 200 Hz. The objective of these tests was to determine the mechanism of failure of AFRSI at Orbiter entry conditions. Details of the test apparatus and test results are presented.Document ID19890009843Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeContractor Report (CR)AuthorsCoe, Charles F.*(Coe Engineering, Inc. Los Altos, CA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateMarch 1, 1987Subject CategoryThermodynamics And Statistical PhysicsReport/Patent NumberH-1389NASA-CR-166624NAS 1.26:166624Accession Number89N19214Funding Number(s)CONTRACT_GRANT: NAS2-11420PROJECT: RTOP 506-43-31Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19890009843.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Paul RIDNER and Beatrice Ridner, Appellants, v. Carol FLOREN, John Floren and Leroy Carnes, Appellees.

No. 2007.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

July 25, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Milton L. GRIFFIN.

No. 59273.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

July 1, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 2, 1977.*

Charles W. Seaman, Natchitoches, for defendant-appellant.

William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., James Lynn Davis, Dist. Atty., Herman L. Lawson, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiff-appellee.

*

 Dixon, J., was of the opinion that a rehearing should be granted.

PER CURIAM.

The record discloses that the defendant was sentenced on the same day that his Second Amended Motion for a New Trial was denied and does not indicate that he waived the required twenty-four delay. La.C.Cr.P. art. 873. Even though defendant did not object to this error at the time of sentencing or urge it on appeal, the error shall be considered by this Court since it is an error discoverable by mere inspection of the pleadings and proceedings and without inspection of the evidence. La.C.Cr.P. art. 920(2); *State v. Young,*337 So.2d 1196 (La. 1976).

Defendant’s conviction is affirmed, but the sentence imposed is vacated and set aside, and the case is remanded to the district court with instructions to the trial judge to sentence defendant in accordance with law.
Exhibit  32.1
                                                                  -------------

                                 ALPHATRADE.COM
                              A Nevada corporation

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of AlphaTrade.com. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Gordon
Muir, Chief Executive Officer certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss.ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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: August 17, 2009                      /s/ Gordon J. Muir
                                                   ----------------------------
                                                   Its: Chief Executive Officer


         A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or
         other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
         signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of
         this written statement has been provided to the Company and will be
         retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
         Commission or its staff upon request. The foregoing certifications are
         accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to section 906 of
         the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
         1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being
         filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.














                                Exhibit 32.1 - 1
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsConsideration of some factors affecting low-frequency fuselage noise transmission for propeller aircraftPossible reasons for disagreement between measured and predicted trends of sidewall noise transmission at low frequency are investigated using simplified analysis methods. An analytical model combining incident plane acoustic waves with an infinite flat panel is used to study the effects of sound incidence angle, plate structural properties, frequency, absorption, and the difference between noise reduction and transmission loss. Analysis shows that these factors have significant effects on noise transmission but they do not account for the differences between measured and predicted trends at low frequencies. An analytical model combining an infinite flat plate with a normally incident acoustic wave having exponentially decaying magnitude along one coordinate is used to study the effect of a localized source distribution such as is associated with propeller noise. Results show that the localization brings the predicted low-frequency trend of noise transmission into better agreement with measured propeller results. This effect is independent of low-frequency stiffness effects that have been previously reported to be associated with boundary conditions.Document ID19860014922Acquisition SourceLegacy CDMSDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsMixson, J. S.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Roussos, L. A.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredSeptember 5, 2013Publication DateApril 1, 1986Subject CategoryAcousticsReport/Patent NumberL-14994NAS 1.60:2552NASA-TP-2552Accession Number86N24393Funding Number(s)PROJECT: RTOP 505-33-53-03Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType19860014922.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
#### Theresa C. WASSON, Appellant, v. Gerald WASSON, Appellee.

No. 77-309.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 9, 1978.

Ainslee R. Ferdie, Coral Gables, for appellant.

Erstling & Erstling, South Miami, for appellee.

Before HAVERFIELD, C. J., and NATHAN and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Shaw*v. *Shaw,*334 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976); *Wynne v. Wynne,*342 So.2d 556 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Pfohl v. Pfohl,*345 So.2d 371, 375 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Hamra v. Hamra,*345 So.2d 1083 (Fla.3d DCA 1977); *Koeppel v. Koeppel,*351 So.2d 766 (Fla.3d DCA 1977).
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-08-00711-CR

Brandon Curry, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 403RD JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-DC-06-205022, HONORABLE BRENDA KENNEDY, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

The district court revoked Brandon Curry’s term of community supervision and

assessed a four-year prison term as punishment. Curry and his trial counsel—as well as the attorney

for the State and the trial judge—signed Defendant’s Plea of True, Voluntary Statements, Waivers,

Stipulations & Judicial Confession to Pleadings SeekingRevocation orAdjudication in which Curry

expressly waived his right to appeal. The trial court signed a certification that this is a plea bargain

case and Curry has no right of appeal. Because the record does not contain a certification that Curry

has the right to appeal, we are required to dismiss this appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 25.2(d).

 

G. Alan Waldrop, Justice

Before Justices Patterson, Waldrop and Henson

Dismissed

Filed: February 6, 2009

Do Not Publish
** **

**Exhibit23.1**

 

**Consent of Independent RegisteredPublic Accounting Firm**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the(i) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-123379) pertaining to the SureWestCommunications 2000 Equity Incentive plan, (ii) Registration Statement (FormS-8 No. 333-42870) pertaining to the SureWest Communications 2000 EquityIncentive Plan, (iii) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-42868)pertaining to the SureWest Communications 1999 Restricted Stock Bonus Plan and(iv) Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-87222) pertaining to the SureWestKSOP of our reports dated March 9, 2007, with respect to the consolidatedfinancial statements of SureWest Communications, SureWest Communicationsmanagement’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reportingof SureWest Communications, included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for theyear ended December 31, 2006.

 
|                        | /s/ Ernst & Young  LLP |   |   |
|------------------------|----------------------------|--------|--------|
| Sacramento, California |                       |
| March 9, 2007          |                       |

 

----
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 21.1
 
                              DISCREET LOGIC INC.
 
                          SUBSIDIARIES OF THE COMPANY
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                             STATE OR JURISDICTION
NAME                           OF INCORPORATION
----                      ---------------------------
<S>                       <C>
3380491 Canada Inc......  Canada
Bandit Communications,
 Inc....................  Delaware
Discreet Logic Asia Pte
 Ltd....................  Republic of Singapore
Discreet Logic
 (Barbados) Inc.........  Barbados
Discreet Logic (Brazil)
 Industria E. Comercio
 Ltda...................  Brazil
Discreet Logic Desktop
 Inc....................  Delaware
Discreet Logic (Desktop)
 Inc....................  Barbados
Discreet Logic Europe
 S.A....................  Grand Duchy of Luxembourg
Discreet Logic France
 R&D S.A.R.L............  France
Discreet Logic France
 E.U.R.L................  France
Discreet Logic
 International Ltd......  Ireland
Discreet Logic
 Investment Corp........  Delaware
Discreet Logic GmbH.....  Austria
Discreet Logic GmbH.....  Federal Republic of Germany
Discreet Logic KK.......  Japan
Discreet Logic Research
 Limited................  United Kingdom
Discreet Logic (UK)
 Limited................  United Kingdom
Discreet Logic--USA,
 Inc....................  Delaware
Discreet Logic--USA
 Research, Inc..........  Delaware
D-Vision Systems Inc....  Illinois
</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.2

                            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 Annual Report of US Oncology, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the period ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Bruce
D. Broussard, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. (S) 1350, as adopted pursuant to (S) 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ Bruce D. Broussard
---------------------------
Bruce D. Broussard
Chief Financial Officer
March 20, 2003