alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 179 (Tuesday, September 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48677]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24561]



[[Page 48677]]

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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

[Docket No. 50-382]


Entergy Operations, Inc.; Notice of Withdrawal of Application for 
Amendment to Facility Operating License

    The U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the Commission) has granted 
the request of Entergy Operations, Inc. (the licensee) to withdraw its 
October 16, 1996, application for proposed amendment to Facility 
Operating License No. NPF-38 for the Waterford Steam Electric Station, 
Unit 3, located in St. Charles Parish, Louisiana.
    The proposed amendment would have revised the facility technical 
specifications (TSs) pertaining TSs 3.2.1 and 3.2.4 and their 
surveillance requirements.
    The Commission had previously issued a Notice of Consideration of 
Issuance of Amendment published in the Federal Register on April 9, 
1997 (62 FR 17232). However, by letter dated August 26, 1997, the 
licensee withdrew the proposed change.
    For further details with respect to this action, see the 
application for amendment dated October 16, 1996, and the licensee's 
letter dated August 26, 1997, which withdrew the application for 
license amendment. The above documents are available for public 
inspection at the Commission's Public Document Room, the Gelman 
Building, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC, and at the local public 
document room located at the University of New Orleans Library, 
Louisiana Collection, Lakefront, New Orleans, LA 70122.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 10th day of September, 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Chandu P. Patel,
Project Manager, Project Directorate, Division of Reactor Projects III/
IV, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-24561 Filed 9-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P
EXHIBIT
32.2




CERTIFICATION





Certification
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)




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), each of the
undersigned officers of Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc., a Nevada corporation
(the "Company"), does hereby certify, to such officer's knowledge,
that:




The
Annual Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 (the "Form 10-Q")
of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q
fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Company.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. andwill
be retained by Innocom Technology Holdings, Inc. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.




Date:
      May 20, 2009
            
            
            /s/
      Cheung Wai Hung, EddieCheung
      Wai Hung, Eddie,
                Chief
      Financial Officer
#### Alberta DANIELS, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND REHABILITATIVE SERVICES, DIVISION OF SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC SERVICES, Respondent.

No. 77-1525.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 21, 1978.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 6, 1978.

Charles R. Colbrunn of Greater Orlando Area Legal Services, Inc., and Rick A. Culbertson, Orange County Legal Aid, Orlando, for petitioner.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari is hereby DENIED.

CROSS, LETTS and MOORE, JJ., concur.
#### EDOR, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. BILTMORE GARDENS TENANTS’ DELEGATION, INC., a Florida corporation, not for profit, Appellee.

No. 70-53.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 17, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 172 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 6, 2005 

Referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

AN ACT 

To amend the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act to 

provide for the regulation of all contact lenses as medical 

devices, and for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

S 172 RFH 

1 SECTION 1. REGULATION OF CERTAIN ARTICLES AS MED2 ICAL DEVICES. 

3 Section 520 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic 

4 Act (21 U.S.C. 360j) is amended by adding at the end 

5 the following subsection: 

6 ‘‘Regulation of Contact Lens as Devices 

7 ‘‘(n)(1) All contact lenses shall be deemed to be de8 vices under section 201(h). 

9 ‘‘(2) Paragraph (1) shall not be construed as bearing 

10 on or being relevant to the question of whether any prod11 uct other than a contact lens is a device as defined by 

12 section 201(h) or a drug as defined by section 201(g).’’. 

Passed the Senate July 29, 2005. 

Attest: EMILY J. REYNOLDS, 

Secretary.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47657]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23911]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP91-78-006]


Midwestern Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Refund Report

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 2, 1997, Midwestern Gas Transmission 
Company (Midwestern), filed its report of refunds reflecting refunds 
provided to its customers.
    Midwestern states that the purpose of these refunds was to flow 
through to its customers refunds received from its former upstream 
supplier, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company (Tennessee). On May 16, 1997, 
Midwestern states that it received from Tennessee a refund of amounts 
paid under its former Rate Schedule CD contracts with Tennessee. 
Tennessee effectuated the refund pursuant to Article VII of the 
Stipulation and Agreement filed on June 2, 1993, as approved by the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's order issued on October 29, 
1993, in Docket No. RP91-203 et al.
    On August 4, 1997, Midwestern states that it disbursed refunds, 
with interest, to its customers entitled to a refund totaling $219,846 
with detailed calculations supporting the refunded amount.
    Midwestern states that a copy of this filing including Schedules 1, 
2 and 3 has been mailed to each affected state regulatory commission 
and to Midwestern's customers.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's rules and regulations. All such protests must be filed on 
or before September 11, 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. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23911 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**

                     

The undersigned certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 as adopted by § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| (1) | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Oconee Financial Corporation (the“Company”) for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complies with therequirements 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, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company.                                                                                                                                    |

 

| Dated: November 10, 2004 |   /s/ B. Amrey Harden                                      B. Amrey Harden Chief Executive Officer                             |
|--------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|  

            |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              |
| Dated: November 10, 2004 |   /s/ Jerry K. Wages                                           Jerry K. Wages Chief Financial Officer |
II 

J. 

Parraguirre 

See Chavez v. State, 125 Nev. 328, 348, 213 P.3d 476, 490 (2009). 

Additionally, Ritter did not object at the sentencing hearing to the 

Division's authority to make a sentencing recommendation, and he 

provides no cogent argument or relevant authority in support of his claim 

on appeal that the Division exceeded its authority. See Maresca v. State, 

103 Nev. 669, 673, 748 P.2d 3, 6 (1987) ("It is appellant's responsibility to 

present relevant authority and cogent argument; issues not so presented 

need not be addressed by this court."). We conclude that Ritter fails to 

demonstrate that the district court abused its discretion at sentencing. 

Ritter also contends that "Mlle judgment of conviction is void 

for all purposes" because it was entered more than 10 days after the 

sentencing hearing in violation of NRAP 4(b)(5)(A). Ritter, however, does 

not allege any prejudice and we conclude that no relief is warranted. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Hardesty 

J. 

Cherry 

cc: Hon. Michael Montero, District Judge 

Humboldt County Public Defender 

Attorney General/Carson City 

Humboldt County District Attorney 

Humboldt County Clerk 

2
**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 ROO Group, Inc. (the "Company") on
      Form
      10-QSB/A for the quarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robin Smyth,
      Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 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 and 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.





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.








December
                19, 2006
            /s/
                Lou KernerLou
                KernerChief
                Financial Officer
#### Larry D. ODUM, Appellant, v. GENERAL FINANCE LOAN COMPANY OF MIAMI SOUTH, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 69-52.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

June 3, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 1, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Exhibit
32.1





WRITTEN
STATEMENT


PURSUANT
TO


18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350





In
connection with this Quarterly Report of China 3C Group and its subsidiaries
(the “Company”) on Form 10-Q/A for the period ended March 31, 2008 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), the
undersigned, Zhenggang Wang, Chief Executive Officer of the Company certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(1) The
Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13a-14(b) or 15d-14(b) 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.





May
      7, 2009/s/ Zhenggang WangZhenggang
      WangChief
      Executive Officer and Chairman(Principal
      Executive Officer)
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47691]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23871]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petrotechnical Open Software Corporation 
(``POSC'')

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 23, 1997, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petrotechnical Open Software 
Corporation (``POSC'') has filed written notifications simultaneously 
with the Attorney General and with the Federal Trade Commission 
disclosing a change in its membership. The notifications were filed for 
the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of 
antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, the following additional parties have become new non-
voting members of POSC: Mathtech International, Inc., Falls Church, VA 
and Petris Technology, Inc., Houston, TX.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or the 
planned activities of POSC.
    On January 14, 1991, POSC filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
February 7, 1991 (56 FR 5021).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on April 22, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) on May 19, 1997 (62 FR 27278).
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 97-23871 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Actof 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 ofTitle 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of NeoPharm, Inc.,a Delaware corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify with respect to theAnnual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31,2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “10-KReport”) that:

(1)         the 10-K Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)         theinformation contained in the 10-K Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

| Dated: March 17, 2006 |   | /s/ LAWRENCE  A. KENYON |
|----------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                       |   | Lawrence A. Kenyon,     |
|                       |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

84

----
Exhibit 23.1





CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm











To The Members


Ministry Partners Investment Company, LLC


Brea, California





In connection with the foregoing Annual Report on Form 10-K to be filed with the Washington, D.C. Office of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, we hereby consent to the inclusion of our report dated March 29, 2011 related to the audit of the consolidated financial statements of Ministry Partners Investment Company, LLC, and subsidiary as of and for the years ended December 31, 2010 and 2009.





/s/  Hutchinson and Bloodgood LLP





Glendale, California


March 29, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             522
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           1,435
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                      7,820
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                          19,842
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                            20,008
<LOANS>                                         48,801
<ALLOWANCE>                                        384
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  82,046
<DEPOSITS>                                      56,566
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                                660
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,412
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            14
<OTHER-SE>                                      14,394
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                  82,046
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                  4,080
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                2,058
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                    99
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                 6,237
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               2,467
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,316
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            2,921
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                       30
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                  16
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                  1,774
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,303
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                         917
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       917
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .75
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.51
<LOANS-NON>                                         31
<LOANS-PAST>                                       110
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   372
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       18
<RECOVERIES>                                         0
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                  384
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                               384
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                              0
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

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

     In  connection  with the  quarterly  report of the APO  Health,  Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Dr. Jan
Stahl,  Chief  Executive  Officer and Chief  Financial  Officer of the  Company,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  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 and 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.

     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 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.


Dated: February 21, 2006             /s/ Jan Stahl
                                     ---------------------------------------
                                     Dr. Jan Stahl
                                     Chief Executive Officer
                                     and Principal Financial Officer
#### Louis K. SMITH and Catherine Y. Smith, Petitioners, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a foreign insurance company authorized to do business in Florida, Respondent.

No. 38579.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 4, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 23, 1970.

Peter S. Schwedock, Miami, for petitioners.

*194Gary S. Barber of Fleming, O’Bryan & Fleming, Ft. Lauderdale, for respondent.

DREW, Justice.

We agree'with both petitioner and respondent that, there being no dispute as to the facts, the decision of the district court1 returning the case to the trial court to “determine the question of what was the proximate cause of the loss suffered by the Smiths” was in direct conflict with Paddock v. Bay Concrete Industries, Inc.,2 Russell & Axon v. Handshoe,3 Automatic Canteen Company of America v. Butler,4 and numerous decisions of this Court to the effect that where the evidence is undisputed, as here, the construction and interpretation of a contract is to be decided by the Court and not by the jury.

In .the questioned decision the disr trict court correctly decided the issues and we approve the reversal of the action of the trial court. The district court was also entirely correct in holding that the Smiths had an insurable interest in the automobile, following the First District’s decision in the *Skaff*case.5 The concluding paragraph, however, sending the case back for a jury trial, was in conflict with the decisions noted above and such paragraph is disapproved with directions to eliminate said paragraph from the decision and to remand the case for determination of allowable damages, under the express terms of the contract relating to loss occasioned by the temporary loss of use of the car.6

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

1

. Smith v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co., 220 So.2d 389 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969).

2

. 154 So.2d 313 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1963).

3

. 176 So.2d 909 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965).

4

. 177 So.2d 712 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1965).

5

. Skaff v. United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 215 So.2d 35 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1968).

6

. The amount of such damages are specified in the policy of insurance.