alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 186 (Thursday, September 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 50257]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25479]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board

49 CFR Part 1011

[STB Ex Parte No. 568]


Modifications to the General Provisions of the Board

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: The Surface Transportation Board (Board) published a document 
in the Federal Register on September 18, 1997 amending parts 1000, 
1001, and 1011 of its regulations to reflect 10 changes made by the ICC 
Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88. Inadvertently, an intended 
reference to part 1011 was not made. This document corrects that error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: These rules are effective on September 18, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beryl Gordon, (202) 565-1600. [TDD for 
the hearing impaired: (202) 565-1695.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board published a document in the 
Federal Register on September 18, 1997 (62 FR 48953) that, inter alia, 
attempted to amend the authority citation for part 1011. Instead, 
amendatory instruction number 5 incorrectly refers to part 1104 instead 
of part 1011. This document corrects the reference.
    In STB Ex Parte No. 568 published in the Federal Register on 
September 18, 1997 (62 FR 48953), make the following correction. On 
page 48955, in the third column, amendatory instruction number 5 is 
corrected to read as follows:
    5. The authority citation for part 1011 is revised to read as 
follows:

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 553, 31 U.S.C. 9701, and 49 U.S.C. 701, 721, 
11144, 14122, and 15721.

    Dated: September 22, 1997.

    By the Board, Vernon A. Williams, Secretary.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25479 Filed 9-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
**EXHIBIT 31.2**CERTIFICATIONI, Lawrence D. Ellis, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of The Med-DesignCorporation;     2. Based on my knowledge, Amendment No. 1, does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report;     3. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:          a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within thoseentities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;          b) Designed with such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internalcontrol over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonableassurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for externalpurposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;          c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and          d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and     4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):          a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize, and report financial information; and          b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: April 27, 2006 LAWRENCED. ELLISLawrence D. EllisChief Financial Officer
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








Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, in his or her capacity as an officer of Ministry Partners Investment Company, LLC, (the "Company") that, to his or her knowledge, this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the Company at the end of such period and the results of operations of the Company for such period.








Date: August 2, 2011
By: /s/ Billy M. DodsonBilly M. Dodson,PresidentDate: August 2, 2011
By: /s/ Susan B. ReillySusan B. Reilly,Principal Accounting Officer
#### “M” ENTERPRISES, INC., Appellant, v. George I. BAUMGARTNER and Doris W. Baumgartner, his wife, and Baumgartner Construction Company, Inc., a Florida Corporation, Appellees.

No. II-489.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

May 25, 1978.

*283John S. Winnie of Winnie & Winnie, Gainesville, for appellant.

George F. Tubb of Jenkins & Tubb, Gainesville, for appellees.

MELVIN, Judge.

Appellant, by interlocutory appeal, seeks to overturn the order rendered by the trial court December 2, 1977, relating to the modification of security deposits made pursuant to the provisions of Section 713.24, Florida Statutes.

On December 9, 1977, appellant filed an instrument identified as a Motion for Rehearing addressed to said Order of Modification. On January 10, 1978, the court entered its order denying the appellant’s motion. The appellant, on February 8, 1978, filed its notice of interlocutory appeal from the order modifying security deposits. The appeal now considered was filed out of season.

In *Wagner v. Bieley, Wagner & Associates, Inc.,*263 So.2d 1 (1972), the Florida Supreme Court held:

> “Motions for rehearing in trial courts are governed by Rule 1.530(a) and (b), R.C.P., which provides in part:

> “ ‘(a) Jury and Non-Jury Actions. A new trial may be granted to all or any of the parties and on all or a part of the issues. On a motion for a rehearing of matters heard without a jury, including summary judgments, the court may open the judgment if one has been entered, take additional testimony and enter a new judgment.

> “ ‘(b) Time for Motion. A motion for a new trial or for rehearing shall be served not later than 10 days after the rendition of verdict in a jury action or the entry of judgment in a non-jury action. . . . ’

> “With regard to the meaning and effect of this rule, we agree with the District Court of Appeal, First District, in *Home News Publishing Company*[v. *U—M*P*ublishing, Inc.,*246 So.2d 117 (1971)] that:

> “ ‘. . . A literal interpretation of the rule would seem to indicate that a motion for rehearing may be directed only to final judgments rendered by a court, since that is the only judicial action specified in the rule authorizing the filing of such a motion. If the rule-making authority had intended to authorize the filing of a motion for rehearing directed to an interlocutory order, it could easily have so provided. Unless the filing of a motion for rehearing to an interlocutory order is authorized by a rule of court promulgated by the rule-making authority, *284then its filing is improper and would not toll the rendition date of the order or the running of the time for seeking appellate review of the order complained about.’ ”

The interlocutory appeal herein filed is DISMISSED.

SMITH, Acting C. J., and ERVIN, J., concur.
#### Willie James BARNES, Jr. v. WAINWRIGHT.

No. 38765.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 18, 1969.

Habeas corpus denied without opinion.
### Coal resources of Oregon

By: Ralph S. MasonMargaret Isabelle Erwin

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/cir362

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plate:  **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

Part or all of this report is presented in Portable Document Format                        (PDF). For best results viewing and printing PDF documents, it is recommended that you download                        the documents to your computer and open them with Adobe Reader. PDF documents opened from your                        browser may not display or print as intended. Download the latest version of Adobe Reader, free of charge. More information                        about viewing, downloading, and printing report files can be found at the common download problems FAQ.
#### Maria Slockbower, appellant, *v.*Alexander Kanouse, respondent.

A bill for partition will not be sustained where the complainant’s legal title is in dispute; but the bill may be retained to afford the party an opportunity of settling his title at law, or it may be dismissed.

On appeal from a decree advised by Vice-Chancellor Van Fleet, whose opinion is reported in *Kanouse*v. *Slockbower, 3 Dick. Ch. Rep. 42.*

*593
      *Mr. Alfred Mills,*for the appellant.

*Mr. James H. Neighbour,*for the respondent.

Per Curiam.

Decree reversed on the ground that the title was in dispute.

*For reversal*— The Chief-Justice, Depue, Dixon, Magie, Reed, Van Syckel, Bogert, Brown, Clement, Krueger, Smith — 11.

*For affirmance*— None.
256 La. 71

#### John W. PUCKETT v. William H. EMMONS, Tommy A. Cockerham, Jr. and The Phoenix Insurance Company of Hartford, Connecticut.

No. 50509.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 25, 1970.

In re: John W. Puckett applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 231 So.2d 671.

The application is denied. According to the facts of the case as found by the Court of Appeal there appears no error of law in the judgment complained of.
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

HORVATH TOWERS III, LLC, : No. 4:16-CV-00421

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

ZONING HEARING BOARD OF :

MONTOURSVILLE BOROUGH, :

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

October 18, 2016

AND NOW, in accordance with the Memorandum of this same date, IT IS 

HEREBY ORDERED THAT Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and 

denied in part. Defendant’s Motion is granted with respect to Plaintiff’s claim 

under the Telecommunications Act of 1996’s “unreasonable discrimination” 

provision, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(i)(I). Defendant’s Motion is 

denied with respect to Plaintiff’s remaining claim under the “substantial evidence” 

provision of the TCA, codified at 47 U.S.C. § 332(c)(7)(B)(iii), and its zoning 

appeal pursuant to state law.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

 United States District Judge

Case 4:16-cv-00421-MWB Document 17 Filed 10/18/16 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1847 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1847

To provide assistance to rebuild hospitals damaged by Hurricane Katrina 
               or Hurricane Rita, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 6, 2005

 Ms. Landrieu introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To provide assistance to rebuild hospitals damaged by Hurricane Katrina 
               or Hurricane Rita, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. HOSPITAL ASSISTANCE.

    From amounts appropriated to carry out this section, the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services shall award emergency grants to hospitals 
located in Louisiana to assist the hospitals in recovering from the 
damage caused by Hurricane Katrina.

SEC. 2. FUNDING.

    (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the 
amounts made available to the Department of Homeland Security under the 
heading ``Disaster Relief'' under the heading ``EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 
AND RESPONSE'' of Public Law 109-62 (119 Stat. 1991), not less than 
$311,600,000 shall be available for emergency grants under section 1 by 
the Secretary of Health and Human Services to Louisiana hospitals, of 
which $151,100,000 shall be for the Oshner Clinical Foundation in 
Louisiana, $89,200,000 shall be for the East Jefferson General 
Hospital, and $71,200,000 shall be for the West Jefferson Medical 
Center.
    (b) Available Until Expended.--The amounts appropriated under 
subsection (a) shall remain available until expended.
                                 <all>
```
----

| 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:     May      15, 2008 |   |    |                                       |   |
|------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                                 |   | Signed: | /s/ Kelvin Claney                          |   |
|                                                 |   |    | President      and Chief Executive Officer |   |
|                                                 |   |    |                                       |   |
|                                                 |   | Signed: | /s/ Karl Redekopp                          |   |
|                                                 |   |    | Chief      Financial Officer               |   |

----
# Search Results

**

3 results.

Alternate formats:                                                            Download search results as RIS                                    ** | **CSV         |             TSV         |             Excel** | **RSS feed based on this search** | **                    JSON version of this page of results                

Page 1, results 1 - 3

Show results on a map

#### Publication Extents

                                Floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the Far Western States; Part 1 Description                            

                                Floods of December 1964 and January 1965 in the far Western States; Part 2 Streamflow and Sediment Data                            

                                Water-discharge determinations for the tidal reach of the Willamette River from Ross Island Bridge to Mile 10.3, Portland, Oregon
#### Glen Dale MARTIN, Sr. v. CAPITOL BROADCASTING CO. et al.

No. 45716.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 23, 1970.

Henley, Lotterhos & McDavid, Richard T. Bennett, Jackson, for appellant.

Butler, Snow, O’Mara, Stevens & Can-nada, Dan McCullen, Jackson, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmd.
#### SHANDS & BAKER, INC., etc., Petitioner, v. HOLMES COMPANY, Inc., etc., Respondent.

No. 40768.

Supreme Court of Florida.

May 6, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 244 So.2d 526.

ROBERTS, C. J., and CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN and DEKLE, JJ., dissent.
<PAGE>   1


                                                                      EXHIBIT 23

                        CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement
(Form S-8 No. 333-80537 and 333-88183) pertaining to Dave & Buster's Inc. 1995
Stock Option Plan and Employee 401(k) Savings Plan of our report dated March
28, 2001 with respect to the consolidated financial statements of Dave &
Buster's Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended
February 4, 2001.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Dallas, Texas
April 23, 2001
EXHIBIT
31.1




CERTIFICATIONS




I,
William Yan Sui Hui, certify that:




1. I have
reviewed this Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2009, of Innocom
Technology Holdings, Inc.:




2. Based
on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in
light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;




3. Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial
condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;




4. The
small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and
have:




(a)
Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that
material information relating to the small business issuer, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;




(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer's disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and




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




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




(a) All
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and




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





Date:
      November 2, 2009
                  
                  /s/William
      Yan Sui Hui , Chief Executive
Officer
<PAGE>   1
                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                                FTD CORPORATION
                       COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE
                      (IN THOUSANDS EXCEPT PER SHARE DATA)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                          YEAR              YEAR           YEAR
                                                          ENDED            ENDED           ENDED
                                                        JUNE 30,          JUNE 30,        JUNE 30,
                                                          1998              1997            1996
                                                       ---------          --------        --------
<S>                                                    <C>                <C>             <C>
BASIC AND DILUTED EARNINGS PER SHARE*:

Net earnings (loss) applicable to common stock 
before extraordinary item                              $ 1,098            $ (1,733)       $ (6,728)

Extraordinary item                                        (835)                  -               -
                                                      --------           ---------       ---------

Net income (loss)                                      $   263            $ (1,733)       $ (6,728)
                                                      ========           =========       =========

Weighted Average number of common shares 
outstanding                                             15,208              15,371          13,337

Common stock equivalents due to dilutive affect
of stock options and warrants                              150                   -               -
                                                      --------           ---------       ---------

Total weighted average number of common shares 
outstanding                                             15,358              15,371          13,337
                                                      ========           =========       =========

Earnings (loss) per share before extraordinary item     $ 0.07             $ (0.11)       $  (0.50)

Extraordinary item                                       (0.05)                  -               -
                                                      --------           ---------       ---------

Basic and Diluted earnings (loss) per share**           $ 0.02             $ (0.11)       $  (0.50)
                                                      ========           =========       =========
</TABLE>


*   Adjusted to reflect the 100% stock dividend declared on February 2, 1998 to 
stockholders of record as of February 9, 1998.

**  Basic and Diluted earnings (loss) per share is shown as one amount due to 
the immaterial effect of dilutive common stock equivalents in the calculation 
of Diluted earnings (loss) per share.