alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 171 (Thursday, September 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 46737]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23421]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-480-000]


Pacific Gas Transmission Company, Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

August 28, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 26, 1997, Pacific Gas Transmission 
Company (PGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-A: First Revised Sheet No. 131, to be effective 
September 26, 1997.
    PGT asserts the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's February 27, 1997 Order on Remand in Docket Nos. RM91-11-
006, et al. (``Order on Remand''), which directed pipelines to revise 
their contract matching term cap in the right-of-first-refusal 
provisions of their tariffs to be consistent with the five-year cap 
established in the Order on Remand.
    PGT further states a copy of this filing has been served upon its 
jurisdictional customers and interested state regulatory agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or 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 Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. All such motions or protests must be filed 
as provided in 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 in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23421 Filed 9-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2094 Considered and Passed Senate (CPS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 2094

  To reauthorize certain provisions relating to Indian tribal justice 
                                systems.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           December 13, 2005

Mr. McCain (for himself and Mr. Dorgan) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice, considered, read the third time, and passed

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To reauthorize certain provisions relating to Indian tribal justice 
                                systems.

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

SECTION 1. INDIAN TRIBAL JUSTICE.

    (a) Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance.--The 
Indian Tribal Justice Technical and Legal Assistance Act of 2000 is 
amended--
            (1) in section 106 (25 U.S.C. 3666), by striking ``for 
        fiscal years 2000 through 2004'' and inserting ``for fiscal 
        years 2004 through 2010''; and
            (2) in section 201(d) (25 U.S.C. 3681(d)), by striking 
        ``for fiscal years 2000 through 2004'' and inserting ``for 
        fiscal years 2004 through 2010''.
    (b) Indian Tribal Justice Systems.--Section 201 of the Indian 
Tribal Justice Act (25 U.S.C. 3621) is amended by striking ``2007'' 
each place it appears and inserting ``2010''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Richard Lamar MULLIS, a minor, by his father and next friend, Shelby Mullis, and Shelby Mullis, individually, Appellants, v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANY, a corporation, Appellee.

No. L-331.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Feb. 5, 1970.

Sistrunk & Power, Jacksonville, for appellants.

*47Ronald L. Palmer, of Mathews, Osborne & Ehrlich, Jacksonville, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the final judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed. See United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Webb, 191 So.2d 869 (Fla.App.1966).

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and SPECTOR, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 197 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 197

  To improve safety and reduce traffic congestion at grade crossings.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 26, 2005

  Mrs. Boxer introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
   referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To improve safety and reduce traffic congestion at grade crossings.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Rail Crossing Safety Act''.

SEC. 2. REPORT REGARDING IMPACT ON PUBLIC SAFETY OF TRAIN TRAVEL IN 
              COMMUNITIES WITHOUT GRADE SEPARATION.

    (a) Study.--The Secretary of Transporation shall, in consultation 
with State and local government officials, conduct a study of the 
impact of blocked highway-railroad grade crossings on the ability of 
emergency responders to perform public safety and security duties.
    (b) Report on the Impact of Blocked Highway-Railroad Grade 
Crossings on Emergency Responders.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit the results 
of the study and recommendations for reducing the impact of blocked 
crossings on emergency response to the Senate Committee on Commerce, 
Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee 
on Transportation and Infrastructure.

SEC. 3. GRADE CROSSING SEPARATION FUND.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of Transporation shall award grants 
to States and units of local government to construct tunnels, bridges 
and other means of separating rail tracks and roads.
    (b) Priority.--
            (1) In general.--In awarding grants under this section, the 
        Secretary shall give priority to--
                    (A) grade separations that would have the most 
                impact on improving safety; and
                    (B) rail lines that have a high volume of goods 
                movement.
            (2) Priority adjustment.--After completion of the report 
        required under section 2, the Secretary shall take the report's 
        findings and recommendations into account when determining 
        priorities.
    (c) Regulations.--In order to carry out this section, the Secretary 
may establish any appropriate policies, procedures, or requirements.
    (d) Authorization of Appropriations.--To carry out this section, 
there are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be necessary 
for each of fiscal years 2006 through 2010.
                                 <all>
```
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 Annual Report of Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc. on Form 10-K for the period ended
December 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, John P. Burke, Chief Financial Officer, Executive Vice President and Corporate Treasurer, certify, 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 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: March 16, 2009



|                                                
|------------------------------------------------
|/s/ John P. Burke                               
|John P. Burke                                   
|Chief Financial Officer,                        
|Executive Vice President and Corporate Treasurer
|Trump Entertainment Resorts, Inc.               
|
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Michael BEEBE.

No. 61787.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 27, 1978.

In re: Michael Beebe applying for writs of review and stay order. Parish of Terre-bonne.

Writ denied.

SUMMERS, J., is of the opinion this writ should be granted.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

TRACY E. WATTS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 182 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 23rd day of August, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
PDF (Portable Document Format) is a document format designed at Adobe Systems, Inc. to facilitate publishing on the Web. Documents in PDF look just like the printed originals, with formatting, fonts, color, and images. First download Adobe's free Acrobat Reader. Then, you can click on and download any**.pdf** file and open it in Acrobat Reader.

Do you want to know how to configure your computer to launch your copy of Adobe Acrobat each time you click on a **.pdf** file? USDA Economics and Statistics System
254 La. 817

#### William P. RYAN v. STATE of Louisiana et al.

No. 50184.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 23, 1969.

In re: William P. Ryan applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made does not warrant the exercise of our original or supervisory jurisdiction.
#### Eddie Lee REED, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 2097.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

June 30, 1969.

Louis R. Bowen, Jr., Public Defender, and Joseph W. DuRocher, Special Asst. Public Defender, Orlando, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and James M. Adams, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant raises two issues on this appeal from a judgment of conviction and sentence pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty for the crime of assault with intent to commit a crime against nature. We affirm.

First, the appellant maintains the trial court let photographs into evidence that were improperly authenticated and that these photographs tended more to confuse and prejudice the jury than serve any probative value. Broad discretion is granted the trial judge] in the area of admissibility of photographs and will not be disturbed unless clearly abusive or patently in error. Dillen v. State, Fla.App.1967, 202 So.2d 904. See also 29 Am.Jur.2d 788. We find no reversible error on this issue.

*365Second, appellant maintains that evidence of similar crimes recently committed were admitted into evidence solely to prejudice the jury as to appellant’s character. It is well settled that relevant evidence of similar crimes committed within a reasonable space in time are admissible to show an intent, motive or pattern of criminalty. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; Hawkins v. State, Fla.1968, 206 So.2d 5. We find from the record the evidence admitted conformed with this rule. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

WALDEN, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ-, concur.
Exhibit 32.1


                        View Systems, Inc.

                 CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT
    Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
                      18 U.S.C. Section 1350

The undersigned executive officer of View Systems, Inc. certifies (the
"Company") pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:

(A)      the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter
         ended March 31, 2005 fully complies with the requirements of Section
         13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(B)      the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
         of the Company.



Date:   February 2, 2006
                                           /s/ Gunther Than
                                          ____________________________________
                                          Gunther Than
                                          Chief Executive Officer
                                          Principal Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 180 (Wednesday, September 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48897]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24602]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Mathematical Sciences; Notice of 
Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis in Mathematical Sciences (1204).
    Date and Time: September 24-25, 1997; 8:30 a.m. until 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 310, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Alvin I. Thaler, Program Director, National 
Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230. 
Telephone: (703) 306-1870.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals for the Group 
Infrastructure Grants Program as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information and financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552B(C) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
    Reason for Late Notice: Difficulty in arranging an acceptable 
meeting date for the panelists.

    Dated: September 11, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-24602 Filed 9-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23913]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP96-308-003 and RP96-268-003]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Tariff 
Revisions To Reflect Cancellation of Third Party Provider Storage Swing 
Option Program

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company 
(Tennessee) tendered for filing proposed revised tariff sheets to be 
effective September 28, 1997, that reflect the cancellation of the 
third party provider (TPP) storage swing option (SSO) program set forth 
in Rate Schedule LMS-MA.
    Tennessee states that copies of this filing have been mailed to 
each of the parties that have intervened in the referenced proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's 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 available for public inspection in the 
Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23913 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Richard VAN EATON, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-111.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Second District.

Sept. 12, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1969.

*266Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Edwin I. Ford, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial judge’s order denying appellant’s motion for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.8S0, 33 F.S.A.

Defendant was convicted pursuant to a jury trial of murder in the first degree in the Circuit Court of the Sixth Judicial Circuit in and for Pinellas County on January 18, 1967. His case was appealed to the Supreme Court of Florida and the conviction was affirmed, Fla., 205 So.2d 298. He subsequently filed in forma pauperis his petition for relief pursuant to CrPR 1.850. The trial judge heard the petition without petitioner being present, although he was represented by his appointed public defender.

Following the hearing the public defender appealed the denial and urges that the trial judge erred in denying petitioner’s motion without petitioner being present, and that petitioner was prejudiced when one of the attorneys representing him absented himself from the courtroom during the process of the trial.

We have reviewed the record and the briefs in this cause and find that the trial judge committed no error in the denial of petitioner’s motion for relief under CrPR 1.850. The rule itself provides:

> “A court may entertain and determine such motion without requiring production of the prisoner at the hearing.”

In King v. State, Fla.App.1963, 157 So.2d 440, we pointed out that the prisoner should only be returned for his testimony at a hearing when there are substantial issues of fact as to events in which the prisoner participated. No such showing was made in the instant case and no useful purpose would have been served in returning the prisoner for the hearing. The trial judge heard argument from the public defender and the assistant state attorney on each of the nineteen allegations set forth in petitioner’s petition for relief, and upon hearing and consideration of each allegation made the trial judge denied the relief and properly so.

The fact that one of the attorneys representing the petitioner in his original trial left the courtroom before the final conclusion and the return of the verdict does not support the proposition that he was prejudiced. The true test is whether or not petitioner was represented by competent counsel. There was no charge that counsel was incompetent, although the public defender was advised by the trial judge that he would entertain and hear evidence of such charge. None was made and therefore we cannot say that the petitioner was not represented at his trial by competent counsel which after all is the test.

For the foregoing reasons the order is affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and LILES and MANN, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 20 (Thursday, January 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4520]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2407]


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


COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION

Sunshine Act; Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Friday, February 28, 1997.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., N.W., Washington, D.C., 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Surveillance matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-2407 Filed 1-28-97; 2:28 am]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
----

xhi

| 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. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | Date: | June 23, 2009 |
|--------|-------|---------------|

|   | Signed: | /s/ Kelvin Claney                     |   |
|--------|---------|---------------------------------------|--------|
|   |    | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|   |    |                                  |   |
|   | Signed: | /s/ Richard Ransom                    |   |
|   |    | Chief Financial Officer               |   |

----
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

## FILED December 14, 2005 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 05-51148 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JUAN CARLOS LOPEZ-MEDINA, also known as Juan C. Lopez, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 3:05-CR-433-ALL

-------------------- Before KING, Chief Judge, and HIGGINBOTHAM and SMITH, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Juan Carlos Lopez-Medina raises arguments that are foreclosed by AlmendarezTorres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that a prior conviction is a sentencing factor under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) and not a separate criminal offense. The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
**Exhibit 23.2**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public AccountingFirm**

Weconsent to the incorporation by reference in the following RegistrationStatements; (Form S-8 No. 33-96192), (Form S-3No. 333-28209), (Form S-8 No. 333-85245), (Form S-8333-44984), (Form S-3 No. 333-66628), (Form S-8No. 333-75824) ,of our report dated February 28, 2005 exceptfor Notes 11 and 15 for which the date is March 15, 2005 with respectto the consolidated financial statements and schedule of Ezenia! Inc. appearingin this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Ezenia!for the year ended December 31,2004.
|                       | /s/ BROWN &  BROWN, LLP |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------|
| Boston, Massachusetts |                             |
| March 31, 2005   |                             |

 

----