alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51093-51094]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25801]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-732-000]


Florida Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

September 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 8, 1997, Florida Gas Transmission 
Company (FGT), 1400 Smith Street, P.O. Box 1188, Houston, Texas 77251-
1188, filed in Docket No. CP97-732-000 a request pursuant to Sections 
157.205 and 157.212 of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural 
Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct, own, 
and operate a new delivery point, located in Vermilion Parish, 
Louisiana, under FGT's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-
553-000, pursuant to Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request that is on file with the Commission and 
open to public inspection.
    FGT proposes to construct, own, and operate a delivery point in 
Vermilion Parish, Louisiana, to accommodate FGT's transportation and 
delivery of gas, on an interruptible basis, to Magnum Gas Marketing, 
Inc. (Magnum) to serve the City of Kaplan. FGT states the proposed 
delivery point will include 2-inch tap, approximately 25 feet of 2-inch 
pipeline, electronic flow measurement (EFM) equipment, and any related 
appurtenant facilities necessary for FGT to deliver up to 600 Mcf per 
day into Magnum's meter station.
    FGT declares Magnum has elected to construct their meter station 
and to reimburse FGT for all costs directly and indirectly incurred for 
the construction of the tap, connecting pipe, and EFM equipment. FGT 
states the proposed delivery point is estimated to cost $39,800 
inclusive of tax gross-up.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice

[[Page 51094]]

of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the Regulations 
under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to the request. If 
no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, the proposed 
activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the day after the 
time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed and not 
withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-25801 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 00-7356.

#### Gonzalez-Gonzalez *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Certiorari denied.
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION

In connection with the Annual Report of Dave & Busters, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended January 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Stephen M. King, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the applicable requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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: April 14, 2011

/s/ Stephen M. KingStephen M. KingChief Executive Officer
October 2, 2015

Mr. Cuong Hoang

206 Desellum Ave

Gaithersburg, MD 20877

Dear Mr. Hoang :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your petition for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can n o t Process Your Request

We received your exemption request filed in D ocket No

. FAA− 20 15

− 2779 , but we are unable

to process your request any further. Your petition does no t comply with the requirements of

§ 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of

the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exempt ion would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

F or more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html . This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal

Aviation A dministration (FAA) requirement outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any

questions you may have.2

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must submit the requested information

within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption

at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notif ying you further.

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267

- 2999.

Sincerely,

/ s/

Brittany Newton

Program Analyst, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure s34
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 21 (Friday, January 31, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4781]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2481]


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


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Division of Research Grants; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Division of Research Grants Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:

    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: February 18, 1997.
    Time: 1:00 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 5116, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Lee Rosen, Scientific Review Administrator, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5116, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 
435-1171.

    Name of SEP: Chemistry and Related Sciences.
    Date: March 4, 1997.
    Time: 3:00 p.m.
    Place: Sheraton Hotel, Washington, DC.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard Panniers, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5106, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1166.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: March 12-14, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Doubletree Hotel, Rockville, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Dennis Leszczyski, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 6170, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1044.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: March 19, 1997.
    Time: 9:00 a.m.
    Place: Hyatt Regency, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Richard Marcus, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5194, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1256.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: March 27-28, 1997.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: American Inn, Bethesda, MD.
    Contact Person: Dr. Nicholas Mazarella, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5128, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1018.

    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions 
set forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. 
Applications and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal 
confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as patentable 
materials and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which 
would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: January 23, 1997.
Paula N. Hayes,
Acting Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-2481 Filed 1-30-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The Honorable Ancer L. Haggerty, Senior United States District **

Judge for the District of Oregon, sitting by designation.

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision ***

without oral argument; therefore, Torres-Verduzco’s request for oral argument is

denied. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JUAN GABRIEL TORRES-VERDUZCO,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 11-10496

D.C. No. 4:10-cr-03724-RCC

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Ancer L. Haggerty, District Judge, Presiding**

Submitted October 15, 2013*** 

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

Juan Gabriel Torres-Verduzco appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges the 64-month sentence imposed following his guilty-plea conviction for

reentry after deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. We have jurisdiction

under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

FILED

OCT 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 11-10496

Torres-Verduzco contends that the district court failed to consider the 18

U.S.C. § 3553(a) factors other than the Guidelines and failed to explain the reasons

for the sentence imposed. We review for plain error. See United States v.

Valencia-Barragan, 608 F.3d 1103, 1108 (9th Cir. 2010). We need not decide

whether the district court erred because Torres-Verduzco has not demonstrated a

reasonable likelihood that his sentence, which was thirteen months below the

advisory Guidelines range calculated prior to the court’s departure, would have

been different absent the alleged errors. See United States v. Waknine, 543 F.3d

546, 553 (9th Cir. 2008). 

Torres-Verduzco also contends that his sentence is substantively

unreasonable. We generally do not consider arguments raised for the first time in a

reply brief, see United States v. Mejia-Pimental, 477 F.3d 1100, 1105 n.9 (9th Cir.

2007), but the record makes clear, in any event, that the 64-month sentence is

substantively reasonable in light of the section 3553(a) factors and the totality of

the circumstances, including Torres-Verduzco’s criminal and immigration history. 

See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007).

Torres-Verduzco also argues that he received ineffective assistance of

counsel at sentencing. We decline to reach this claim on direct appeal. See United

States v. Rahman, 642 F.3d 1257, 1259-60 (9th Cir. 2011).

AFFIRMED.
#### Claude W. BOWMAN, Appellant, v. BILL LOMAX PAINT AND BODY SHOP, INC., Appellee.

No. 68-948.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

July 22, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 18, 1969.

Hawkesworth & Kay and Charles H. Baumberger, Miami, for appellant.

Conway E. Boone, Jr., Hialeah, for ap-pellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff below appeals from a final judgment based upon a jury verdict in an action for damages for breach of contract. The basis of the appeal is that the trial court should have granted a new trial because of improper argument to the jury by defendant-appellee’s attorney.

An examination of the record reveals that the comments complained of occurred in the attorney’s opening statement to the jury. We hold that the trial court correctly ruled that the comments were not of such a nature as to require a new trial. Therefore the judgment is affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Pix Shoes of Miami, Inc. v. Howarth, Fla.App.1967, 201 So.2d 80; Bieley v. Jennings Construction Corporation, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 809.

Affirmed.
II 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2763 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located at 

2395 East Del Mar Boulevard in Laredo, Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal 

David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant 

Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 12, 2023 

Mr. CORNYN (for himself and Mr. CRUZ) introduced the following bill; which 

was read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and 

Governmental Affairs 

A BILL 

To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service 

located at 2395 East Del Mar Boulevard in Laredo, 

Texas, as the ‘‘Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, 

Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

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


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•S 2763 IS

1 SECTION 1. LANCE CORPORAL DAVID LEE ESPINOZA, 

2 LANCE CORPORAL JUAN RODRIGO RODRI3 GUEZ & SERGEANT ROBERTO ARIZOLA JR. 

4 POST OFFICE BUILDING. 

5 (a) DESIGNATION.—The facility of the United States 

6 Postal Service located at 2395 East Del Mar Boulevard 

7 in Laredo, Texas, shall be known and designated as the 

8 ‘‘Lance Corporal David Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal 

9 Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. 

10 Post Office Building’’. 

11 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg12 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

13 States to the facility referred to in subsection (a) shall 

14 be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Lance Corporal David 

15 Lee Espinoza, Lance Corporal Juan Rodrigo Rodriguez 

16 & Sergeant Roberto Arizola Jr. Post Office Building’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with $$_JOB
**EXHIBIT 32**

 

**Certificationof Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to18 U.S.C. Section 1350,**

**As AdoptedPursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

Each of the undersignedhereby certifies, for the purposes of section 1350 of chapter 63 of title18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in his capacity as an officer of Poore Brothers, Inc.(the “Company”), that, to his knowledge, the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-Kfor the period ended December 31, 2005, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operation of theCompany. This written statement is being furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission as an exhibit to such Form 10-K. A signedoriginal of this statement has been provided to the Company and will beretained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

 
|                       |   |                                               |
|----------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------|
| Date: March 29,  2006 | By:    | /s/  Eric  J. Kufel                      |
|                       |   |                                               |
|                       |   | Eric J. Kufel                                      |
|                       |   | Chief Executive  Officer                           |
|                       |   | (Principal  Executive Officer, Principal Financial |
|                       |   | Officer and  Principal Accounting Officer)         |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                          5
<CIK>                              0000944697
<NAME>                             Smith Barney Principal PLUS Futures Fund L.P.

<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                     JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                       DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                3,023,608
<SECURITIES>                         10,432,121
<RECEIVABLES>                           783,756
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     14,239,485
<PP&E>                                        0
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       14,239,485
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 1,093,558
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      0
<OTHER-SE>                           13,145,927
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         14,239,485
<SALES>                                       0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                       (637,155)
<CGS>                                         0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                        220,228
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                        (857,383)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           0
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                           (857,383)
<EPS-BASIC>                            (10.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 0


</TABLE>
51272 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 189 / Tuesday / September 30, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Location Remove Insert

52.244–2 clause date ....................................... (Feb 1997) ........................................................ (Oct 1997).

52.244–2(g) ....................................................... 15.903(d) .......................................................... 15.404–4(c)(4)(i)

52.244–3 clause date ....................................... (Apr 1985) ......................................................... (Oct 1997).

52.244–3(b) ....................................................... 15.903(d) .......................................................... 15.404–4(c)(4)(i)

[FR Doc. 97–25666 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

GENERAL SERVICES

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND

SPACE ADMINISTRATION

48 CFR Chapter 1

Federal Acquisition Regulation; Small

Entity Compliance Guide

AGENCIES: Department of Defense (DOD),

General Services Administration (GSA),

and National Aeronautics and Space

Administration (NASA).

ACTION: Small Entity Compliance Guide.

SUMMARY: This document is issued

under the joint authority of the

Secretary of Defense, the Administrator

of General Services and the

Administrator for the National

Aeronautics and Space Administration

as the Federal Acquisition Regulation

(FAR) Council. This Small Entity

Compliance Guide has been prepared in

accordance with Section 212 of the

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104–121).

It consists of a summary of the rule

appearing in Federal Acquisition

Circular (FAC) 97–02 which amends the

FAR. Further information regarding this

rule may be obtained by referring to

FAC 97–02 which precedes this notice.

This document may be obtained from

the Internet at http://www.arnet.gov/far.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beverly Fayson, FAR Secretariat, (202)

501–4755.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Part 15 Rewrite; Contracting by

Negotiation and Competitive Range

Determination [FAC 97–02, FAR Case

95–029]

The final rule revises Part 15,

Contracting by Negotiation. The final

rule infuses innovative techniques into

the source selection process, simplifies

the acquisition process, incorporates

changes in pricing and unsolicited

proposal policy, and facilitates the

acquisition of best value products and

services. The final rule emphasizes the

use of effective and efficient acquisition

methods and eliminates unnecessary

burdens imposed on industry and

Government. In addition, the rule

revises the sequence in which Part 15

information is presented to facilitate use

of the regulation.

Dated: September 22, 1997.

Edward C. Loeb,

Director, Federal Acquisition Policy Division.

[FR Doc. 97–25683 Filed 9–29–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6820–EP–P
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 10, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 03-50899

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN ARAIZA-MORALES,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. EP-03-CR-607-ALL-PRM

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

Before DAVIS, EMILIO M. GARZA, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

 Juan Araiza-Morales appeals the sentence imposed following

his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States

after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. 

Araiza-Morales contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C.

§ 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior

conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element

of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have

been alleged in his indictment. Araiza-Morales maintains that he
No. 03-50899

-2-

pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry

under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds

the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed

for that offense.

In Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235

(1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in

8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of

separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing

provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. 

Araiza-Morales acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by

Almendarez-Torres, but asserts that the decision has been cast

into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). 

He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. 

Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See Apprendi,

530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit, 231 F.3d 979, 984

(5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres

“unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule

it.” Dabeit, 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and

citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of

filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks

that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED. 

AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.