alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 178 (Monday, September 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48299]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24343]



[[Page 48299]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

[MT-960-1150-00]


Call for Nomination for Resource Advisory Council

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Dakotas District, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Resource Advisory Council call for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to solicit public nominations 
for an opening on the Dakotas District Resource Advisory Council. The 
council provides advice and recommendations to BLM for land-use 
planning and management of the public lands within North and South 
Dakota. Public nominations will be accepted for 30 days after 
publication of this notice.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLMPA) directs the 
Secretary of the Interior to involve the public in decisions related to 
planning for and management of lands administered by the BLM. Section 
309 of FLMPA directs the Secretary to create a citizen-based council, 
established and authorized in accordance with the requirements of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). As required by FACA, Resource 
Advisory Council members must represent user or interest groups 
affected by the BLM's governance of public lands.
    The vacancy to be filled will represent environmental and resource 
conservation organizations, archaeological and historic interests, or 
wild horse and burro groups in North Dakota.
    Individuals may nominate themselves or others. Nominees must be 
residents of North Dakota. Evaluation of nominees will be based on 
education, training, understanding of the issues, and knowledge of the 
geographical area of the Council. Nominees should have demonstrated a 
commitment to collaborative resource-decision making. All nominations 
must be accompanied by a letter of reference from represented interests 
or organizations, a completed background information nomination form, 
as well as any other information that speaks to the nominee's 
qualifications.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas J. Burger, District Manager, 
Dakotas District Office, 2933 3rd Avenue West, Dickinson, ND 58601. 
Telephone (701) 225-9148.

    Dated: September 9, 1997.
Douglas J. Burger,
District Manager.
[FR Doc. 97-24343 Filed 9-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-DN-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2146 

To extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

DECEMBER 20, 2005 

Ms. COLLINS (for herself, Mr. LIEBERMAN, and Mr. AKAKA) introduced the 

following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on 

Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To extend relocation expenses test programs for Federal 

employees. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF RELOCATION EXPENSES TEST 

4 PROGRAMS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 5739 of title 5, United 

6 States Code, is amended— 

7 (1) in subsection (a)(1), by striking ‘‘for a pe8 riod not to exceed 24 months’’; and 

9 (2) in subsection (e), by striking ‘‘7 years’’ and 

10 inserting ‘‘11 years’’. 
2 

•S 2146 IS

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

2 this section shall take effect as though enacted as part 

3 of the Travel and Transportation Reform Act of 1998 

4 (Public Law 105–264; 112 Stat. 2350). 

Æ
EXHIBIT 32.2


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection with the Quarterly Report of Sierra Resource Group, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ending June 30, 2009  as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Paul W.
Andre, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant
to  18  U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as  adopted  pursuant  to  Section  906  of  the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  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.


Date: August 3, 2009



                                            By: /s/ PAUL W. ANDRE
                                                ___________________________
                                                    Paul W. Andre
                                                    Treasurer and
                                                    Chief Financial Officer
#### Edward HINTON v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY CO. OF NEW YORK.

No. 8472.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

June 30, 1971.

*25Frank S. Bruno and Carl J. Ciaccio, New Orleans, for appellant.

W. T. Christovich, of Christovich & Kearney, New Orleans, for appellee.

Before LANDRY, ELLIS and BLANCHE, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge.

This is a workmen’s compensation suit, brought by Edward Hinton against Fidelity and Casualty Company of New York, insurer of his employer Theodore Talley, d/b/a Talley Brothers Seed and Feed Store. He alleges an injury to the middle finger of his left hand, and claims to be totally and permanently disabled as a result thereof. After trial on the merits, judgment was rendered dismissing plaintiff’s suit, and he has appealed.

Plaintiff testified that he struck and injured the middle finger of his left hand on April 4, 1961, while in the course and scope of his employment with defendant’s insured, tie further testified he saw a doctor the next day, who put a splint on the finger, which remained in place for about three weeks. During that three weeks, he testified that he was unable to work. He said he was unable to use the finger for six months or a year thereafter.

Dr. William Fisher, whose deposition is in the record, saw plaintiff on April 27, 1961. When his testimony was taken on October 31, 1969, he had no independent recollection of plaintiff’s case. The reports which he rendered to plaintiff’s counsel in 1961 were offered in evidence and objected to by defendant. They should have been excluded from evidence and not considered by the court.

However, counsel for defendant cross examined Dr. Fisher on the reports and elicited testimony to the effect that on April 27, 1961, the joint of the finger was swollen and there was a loss of 30 degrees motion. Dr. Fisher felt he had suffered an acute sprain, but did not feel that the injury would interfere with his performing his usual work. On August 22, 1961, he found no disability at all in the finger, except for an enlargement of the joint.

Other evidence in the record shows conclusively that plaintiff went to work as a laborer for Seal Construction Company on April 5, 1961, the day after the accident. He did heavy work with a pick and shovel. His employer testified there was nothing wrong with his work, and said he would not have hired him had there been anything wrong with his finger.

The record also shows that plaintiff was injured while in Seal’s employ, on April 25, 1961, which occasioned his visit to Dr. Fisher.

Considering all of the foregoing, we think it evident that any injury which plaintiff suffered on April 4, 1961, was not disabling. It is not shown that he worked in pain. Since plaintiff’s own testimony *26about the splint and being unable to work for three weeks is obviously false, we can only conclude, as did the trial judge, that he received no compensable injury to his finger.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2


                                  CERTIFICATION
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b)  of  Section  1350,  Chapter  63 of  Title  18,  United  States  Code),  the
undersigned officer of The Pepsi Bottling Group, Inc. (the "Company")  certifies
to his knowledge that:

     (1)  The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
          June 12, 2004 (the "Form 10-Q") fully  complies with the  requirements
          of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 (the
          "Act"); and

     (2)  The  information  contained in the Form 10-Q fairly  presents,  in all
          material respects,  the financial conditions and results of operations
          of the Company as of the dates and for the periods  referred to in the
          Form 10-Q.



                                                   /s/ Alfred H. Drewes
                                                   --------------------
                                                   Alfred H. Drewes
                                                   Senior Vice President and
                                                   Chief Financial Officer
                                                   July 21, 2004

The foregoing  certification  (the  "Certification")  is being furnished  solely
pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002  (subsection (a) and
(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code).

A signed original of the Certification has been provided to the Company and will
be retained  by the Company in  accordance  with Rule  12b-11(d)  of the Act and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
From: Fairchild, Susan To: "Higgins, Cortney" Cc: VanLare, Paula ; Okoye, Winifred ; Barnett, Keith Subject: NNN cost number

I checked on the NNN supplemental proposal cost number I had balked at during our meeting today.

The number is accurate: facilities already own controls, and do not have to buy controls to reduce their organic HAP (phenol, formaldehyde and methanol) but they would incur costs to burn natural gas at about $125,000 per bonded line. That is 6 facilities at 125K per bonded line means 750K per year for operating their controls.

At our meeting, that seemed like a high number to me, but when considering their production levels and the cost of natural gas, it now seems correct.

Thanks,

Susan Fairchild Environmental Scientist U.S. Environmental Protection Agency direct line: 919.541.5167 fax: 919.541-3207 email: fairchild.susan@epa.gov

Overnight mail address: US EPA Mail Code D243-04 109 TW Alexander Drive RTP, NC 27709
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 201 

For the relief of Katarina Galovic Gnall. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 31, 2005 

Mr. STEVENS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL

For the relief of Katarina Galovic Gnall.

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

3 SECTION 1. PERMANENT RESIDENCE. 

4 Notwithstanding any other provision of law, for pur5 poses of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

6 1101 et seq.), Katarina Galovic Gnall, the daughter of 

7 former Yugoslavian diplomats, shall be held and consid8 ered to have been lawfully admitted to the United States 

9 for permanent residence as of the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act upon payment of the required visa fee. 
2

•S 201 IS

1 SEC. 2. REDUCTION OF NUMBER OF AVAILABLE VISAS. 

2 Upon the granting of permanent residence to 

3 Katarina Galovic Gnall as provided in this Act, the Sec4 retary of State shall instruct the proper officer to reduce 

5 by 1 during the current fiscal year the total number of 

6 immigrant visas available to natives of the country of the 

7 alien’s birth under section 203(a) of the Immigration and 

8 Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1153(a)).

Æ
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

MIDDLE DISTRICT 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

MELISSA ANN BRODBECK, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 502 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

BARBARA A. BRODBECK, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 503 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

 

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 

 Respondent 

 v. 

PAUL MICHAEL LEAHY, 

 Petitioner 

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 504 MAL 2015 

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court 

ORDER 

PER CURIAM 

AND NOW, this 16th day of November, 2015, the Petition for Allowance of 

Appeal is DENIED.
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Empyrean Holdings,Inc., a Nevada corporation (the "Company"), on Form 10-QSB for the quarterending March 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the"Report"), I, Robert L. Lee, President of the Company and Chief FinancialOfficer, certify, pursuant to Sect. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.Sect. 1350), that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofsection 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 ofthe Company. 

 

 

/s/Robert L. Lee_______________ 

Robert L. Lee, President and

Chief Financial Officer

 

Dated: May 15, 2006
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth ___________________________

No. 02-21-00296-CV

___________________________

On Appeal from County Court at Law No. 1

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2021-004833-1

Before Bassel, Womack, and Wallach, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion

CEDRIC WINGFIELD AND ALL OTHER OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

CANDLETREE APARTMENTS, Appellee
2

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

On January 31, 2022, we notified Appellants that their brief had not been filed 

as the appellate rules require. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.6(a). We stated that we could 

dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, Appellants filed 

with the court an appellants’ brief and an accompanying motion reasonably explaining 

the brief’s untimely filing and why an extension was needed. See Tex. R. App. P. 

10.5(b), 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b). We have received no response.

Because Appellants have failed to file a brief even after we afforded an 

opportunity to explain the initial failure, we dismiss the appeal for want of 

prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 38.8(a)(1), 42.3(b), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered: March 3, 2022
Exhibit 32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED**


**PURSUANT
      TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**








The
      undersigned hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
      pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the
      quarterly report of China 3C Group on Form 10-QSB for the quarterly period
      ended
      March 31, 2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of
      the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in such
      quarterly report on Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the
      financial condition and results of operation of China 3C Group.








May
                12, 2006
            
            /s/
                Zhenggang WangZhenggang
                WangChairman
                of the Board &Chief
                Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)/s/
                Jian LiuJian
                LiuChief
                Financial Officer(Principal
                Financial Officer)
MODIFY and AFFIRM ; and Opinion Filed February 23, 2015.

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

No. 05
- 1 4
- 0 0 786
- CR
TRAMETRIA DENISE BAL DWIN , Appellant
V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial Distri ct Co urt Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F 12
- 52087
- P


### MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Justices Lang, Stoddart, and Schenck Opinion b y Justice Schenck Trametria Denise Baldwin appeals her conviction, following the adjudication of her guilt, for robbery. See T EX

. P ENAL C ODE A NN

. § 29.02(a) (West 2011). The trial court assessed punishment at eight years’ imprisonment. In three issues, appellant contends the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt should be modified to show there was no plea bargain agre ement and
to reflect the correct name s of the prosecutor and defense attorney at the adjudicating hearing. We modify the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt and affirm as modified. The judgment adjudicating guilt recites plea bargain terms as “8 yea rs penitentiary.” The record, however, shows appellant pleaded true to the motion to adjudicate without the benefit of- 2

- a plea bargain. Additionally, the judgment incorrectly identifies the attorney for the S tate as Jerry Varney and the attorney for appel lant as Laura Barzune. The record shows th at Meredith Behgooy represented the S tate and Harry Ingram represent appellant at the adjudication hearing. Thus, the judgment is incorrect. We sustain appellant’s three issues. We modify the judgment adjudicati ng guilt to show (1) the attorney for the S tate is “Meredith Behgooy;” (2) the attorney for defendant is “Harry Ingram;” and (3) to delete “8 years Penitentiary” from the “terms of plea bargain” section. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 43.2(b); Bigley v.
State , 865 S .W.2d 26, 27

– 28 (Tex. Crim. App. 1993); Asberry v. State , 813 S.W.2d 526, 529

– 30 (Tex. App.

— Dallas 1991, pet. ref’d). As modified, w e af firm the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Do Not Publis h T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47
140786F.U05 /David Schenck/ DAVID SCHENCK JUSTICE- 3

- 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**

JUDGMENT

TRAMETRIA DENISE BAL DWIN , Appellant
No. 05

- 14

- 00786

- CR V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court of Da llas County, Texas (Tr.Ct.No. F12

- 52087

- P. Opinion delivered by Justice Schenck, Justices Lang and Stoddart participating.

Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment adjudicating guilt is MODIFIED as follows:
The section enti tled “Attorney for State” is modified to show “Meredith Behgooy.” The section entitled “Attorney for Defendant” is modified to show “Harry Ingram.” Delete “8 Years Penitentiary” from section entitled “Terms of Plea Bargain.” As modified, we AFFIRM the tria l court’s judgment adjudicating guilt.

Judgment entered February 23, 2015.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

Appellate case name: John Seger, M.D. v. Brian Branda, Branda Financial Services, and 

National Life Insurance Company

Appellate case number: 01-21-00224-CV

Trial court case number: 2020-51686

Trial court: 165th District Court of Harris County

Date motion filed: January 4, 2023

Party filing motion: Appellant

It is ordered that the motion for rehearing is DENIED.

Judge’s signature: _____/s/ Amparo Guerra________

 Acting for the Court

The panel consists of Justices Kelly, Rivas-Molloy, and Guerra.

Date: ____February 2, 2023_____
No. 00-550.

#### Steyskal v. United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Apprendi*v. *New Jersey,*580 U.'S. 466 (2000).
EXHIBIT 10.49

*** CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THIS EXHIBIT HAVE BEEN OMITTED PURSUANT TO A REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT UNDER RULE 24b-2 OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934. THE OMITTED MATERIALS HAVE BEEN FILED SEPARATELY WITH THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION ***

FIRST AMENDMENT TO A LICENSE AGREEMENT
BETWEEN JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.
AND VION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. DATED DECEMBER 31, 2007

Agreement made of December 31, 2007 by and between Vion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., having offices at Four Science Park, New Haven, CT 06511 (hereinafter referred to as ‘‘VION’’) and Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., having an address at 199 Grandview Road, Skillman, NJ 08558(hereinafter referred to as ‘‘JJCC’’).

WHEREAS, VION and JJCC entered into a License Agreement effective March 1, 2004 (‘‘Agreement’’);

WHEREAS, VION and JJCC wish to amend Section 3.3 as follows.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of these premises and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged by each party, VION and JJCC agree as follows:

1.    Section 3.3 of the Agreement is hereby replaced with the following new Section 3.3.

3.3    For each of the Fiscal Years of 2007, 2008, and 2009, an annual minimum royalty shall be due and payable by JJCC based on Net Sales by JJCC or its sublicensees of Licensed Products during such Fiscal Year in the amount of [***]. If the Agreement is terminated during one of such Fiscal Years, then the applicable minimum royalty for such Fiscal Year shall be prorated as of the date of such termination (e.g., if JJCC terminates the Agreement on June 30, 2008, then the Minimum Royalty Amount for Fiscal Year 2008 shall be [***] and there should be no Minimum Royalty Amount for Fiscal Year 2008). In the event that the running royalties paid to VION based on Net Sales by JJCC or its sublicensees of Licensed Products during such Fiscal Year are less than the applicable Minimum Royalty Amount for such Fiscal Year, then VION shall notify JJCC of the amount of such shortfall. JJCC shall pay to VION the amount of such shortfall prior to [***] days after such notice by VION. For avoidance of doubt, there shall be no minimum royalty due to VION for Fiscal Year 2010 and thereafter.

2.    Except as specifically amended by this First Amendment to the License Agreement, the Agreement shall continue in force and effect in accordance with its terms as of the date of this First Amendment to the License Agreement.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this First Amendment has been duly executed as of the day and year first written above.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.


VION PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.BY:


/s/ Francis Florido


BY:


/s/ Howard B. JohnsonNAME: Francis Florido
TITLE: V.P. Business Development





NAME: Howard B. Johnson
TITLE:  President & CFO


|
|
|
|

|*** | Confidential
|--- | ------------

---