alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 189 (Tuesday, September 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 51095]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25818]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-530-000]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

September 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 19, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline 
Company (``Koch'') tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, to become effective October 
19, 1997:

Fifth Revised Volume No. 1

Third Revised Sheet No. 1702
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 1907
Fourth Revised Sheet No. 1908
Second Revised Sheet No. 4010
1st Rev Sixth Revised Sheet No. 5200

    Koch states that the above referenced tariff sheets are being 
submitted to make minor miscellaneous changes to its tariff. The 
changes include correction of typographical errors, and revising tariff 
references to reflect new Section numbers.
    Koch also states that copies of the instant filing have been served 
upon each affected customer, state commissions, and other interested 
parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this 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 and regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed as 
provided by Section 154.210 of the Commission's rules and 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 part 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. 97-25818 Filed 9-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
      AS
      ENACTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




In
      connection with the Annual Report of Remote Dynamics, Inc. (the “Company”) on
      Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending August 31, 2006 as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), Neil Read,
      Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Company certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as enacted 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.




Date:
      January 16, 2007




/s/
                Neil ReadNeil
                ReadVice President, Chief Financial Officer
              and Treasurer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002 (“Section 906”), or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or
      otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the
      electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
      provided to Remote Dynamics, Inc. and will be retained by Remote Dynamics,
      Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Raymond L. BOWEN, Appellee.

No. 70-119.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
EXHIBIT 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF ROBERT J. CARROLL, CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD, PRESIDENT

AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



I, Robert J. Carroll, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of AMX Corporation (the Company), hereby certify that (a) the
Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and (b) information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



/S/    ROBERT J.
CARROLLRobert J. Carroll Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive Officer, AMX
Corporation




Date: June 18, 2004



The foregoing certifications are
being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and are not being filed as part of the Form 10-K or as separate disclosure documents. Signed originals of these written
statements have been provided to AMX Corporation and will be retained by AMX Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### Edward Norris NEAL, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-418.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 18, 1970.

Lee R. Horton, Public Defender, Lake Wales, and Robert R. Crittenden, Asst. Public Defender, Winter Haven, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Michael N. Kavouklis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant appeals a judgment and sentence entered by the trial judge sitting without a jury.

Appellant argues two points on his appeal, to-wit: (1) the evidence was insufficient; and (2) certain monies were improperly admitted into evidence.

As to the second point, the appellant did not assign as error the admission of the monies into evidence and, therefore, cannot rely upon this point for reversal.1

As to appellant’s fir^t point, we have carefully examined the record-on-appeal and conclude that there is ample evidence upon which to sustain the judgment and sentence appealed.

Affirmed.

HOBSON, C. J., and PIERCE and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.

1

. Allen v. State, 174 So.2d 538, 540 (Fla.1965); Belger v. State, 171 So.2d 574, 578-579 (Fla.App.1965).
R18-2-203. Ozone: One-hour Standard and Eight-hour Average Standard

A. One-hour standard. Until June 15, 2005:

1. The one-hour ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.12 ppm (235 micrograms per cubic 

meter). 

2. The one-hour secondary ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.12 ppm (235 micrograms 

per cubic meter). 

3. The one-hour standards are attained when the expected number of days per calendar year 

with maximum hourly average concentrations above 0.12 ppm (235 micrograms per cubic 

meter) is less than or equal to 1, determined by 40 CFR 50, Appendix H.

B. Eight-hour averaged standard.

1. The eight-hour average primary ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm. 

2. The eight-hour average secondary ambient air quality standard for ozone is 0.075 ppm. 

3. To determine attainment of the primary and secondary standards, a person shall measure 

ozone in the ambient air by:

a. A reference method based on 40 CFR 50, Appendix D, and designated according to 40 

CFR 53; or

b. An equivalent method designated according to 40 CFR 53.

4. Eight-hour average primary and secondary ambient air quality standards for ozone are met 

at an ambient air quality monitoring site when the three-year average of the annual fourth 

highest daily maximum eight-hour average ozone concentration is less than or equal to 

0.075 ppm, determined according to 40 CFR 50, Appendix P.

Historical Note

Amended effective December 22, 1976 (Supp. 76-5). Former Section R9-3-204 repealed, 

new Section R9-3-204 adopted effective May 14, 1979 (Supp. 79-1). Amended effective 

October 2, 1979 (Supp. 79-5). Amended effective August 29, 1980 (Supp. 80-4). 

Amended by deleting subsections (B) through (D) effective September 22, 1983 (Supp. 

83-5). Former Section R9-3-204 renumbered without change as Section R18-2-204 

(Supp. 87-3). Section R18-2-103 renumbered from R18-2-204 and amended effective 

September 26, 1990 (Supp. 90-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 11 A.A.R. 3305, 

effective October 3, 2005 (Supp. 05-3). Amended by final rulemaking at 18 A.A.R. 1542, 

effective August 7, 2012 (Supp. 12-2).
**High-Value Export Indexes (91018)**
#### INTERNATIONAL ERECTORS, INC., a corporation of Florida, Appellant, v. SUNBEAM ELECTRONICS, INC., Appellee.

No. 69-496.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 27, 1970.

Carl V. Wisner, Jr., Fort Lauderdale, for appellant.

Joseph Z. Fleming, of Paul & Thomson, Miami, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of Merritt v. Unkefer, Fla.1969, 223 So.2d 723.

Affirmed.

CROSS, C. J., and REED and OWEN, JJ., concur.
### Water resources of the Humboldt River Valley near Winnemucca, Nevada

By: Philip M. Cohen

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1795

#### Links

- More information:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**                            (html)
-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 3**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 4**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 5**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 6**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 7**                            (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.
#### Mary J. YOUNG v. Larry M. YOUNG.

Civ. 1234.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

Nov. 2, 1977.

Horace N. Lynn, Montgomery, for appellant.

Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for ap-pellee.

WRIGHT, Presiding Judge.

This is an appeal from an order modifying child support provisions of a divorce decree.

The original 1974 decree granted to appellant (the wife) custody of the two children, then ages seven and four with child support of $100 per month. In March 1977 the mother requested an increase to $300 per month. After oral hearing the court ordered the support be increased to $130 per month with the father maintaining a hospital policy for the children. The wife appealed. We affirm.

*612Testimony and tax returns of the father indicate an increase in gross income from $7,802, in 1974 (the year of' the divorce) to $9,256 in 1976. He is remarried and his present wife is employed. The father or his parents have custody of the children every weekend, and purchase some clothing for them.

The wife has also remarried. She has been employed for *8Vz*years. Her income has risen from $8,821 in 1974 to $11,559 in 1976. She claims the children as dependents and receives credit for tax purposes for the cost of child care which was $1,875 in 1976.

The wife submits that the yearly income of the husband has increased some $2,400 since the support was set at $100 per month and that the court erred in not granting an increase greater than to $130 (a 30% increase).

The modification of a prior decree for support, based upon changed circumstances of the parties, is largely a matter within the judicial discretion of the trial court. The exercise of such discretion is to be disturbed on appeal only if from a review of the evidence this court finds in the decree such an abuse of discretion as to be plainly and palpably wrong. *Womble v. Womble,*56 Ala.App. 318, 321 So.2d 660 (1975). That a husband’s income has increased materially is a weighty factor in sustaining a trial judge in increasing an award. *Mockridge v. Mockridge,*278 Ala. 79, 175 So.2d 772 (1965). Here, the judge, having heard and reviewed the evidence, granted a 30% increase in child support. Each case must depend upon its own facts and no mathematical formula can determine what is an appropriate award of child support. *Phillips v. Phillips,*53 Ala.App. 191, 298 So.2d 613 (1974).

The wife contends the trial court gave improper consideration to the fact that she earns more than the husband.

It is impossible for this court to determine the extent of the court’s consideration of that fact. It was not improper to consider that fact.in relation to the change in circumstances and to the present needs of the children. Sources of assistance available for the total support of the children are certainly relevant facts, though they do not change the basic rule that the primary duty of support is upon the father. *Womble v. Womble, supra.*

Upon consideration of all factors and the evidence, we are unable to find the judgment of the trial court palpably wrong.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY and HOLMES, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 185 (Wednesday, September 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 49997]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-25346]


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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION

[Notice (97-139)]


Government-Owned Inventions, Available for licensing

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Availability of Inventions for Licensing.

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

SUMMARY: The inventions listed below are assigned to the National 
Aeronautics and Space Administration, have been filed in the Untied 
States Patent and Trademark Office, and are available for licensing.

DATE: September 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Beth Vrioni, Patent Counsel, Kennedy 
Space Center, Mail Stop DE-TPO, at (407) 867-6225.
    NASA Case No KSC-11866: Non-Intrusive Impedence based Cable Tester;
    NASA Case No. KSC-11959: Use of Ultrasound to Improve the 
Effectiveness of a Permeable Treatment Wall;
    NASA Case No. KSC-11809: Detector for Particle Surface 
Contamination.

    Dated: September 17, 1997.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-25346 Filed 9-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 10.16







June 6, 1997



Mr. Robert L. Norton 
President 
Florists' Transworld Delivery, Inc.
3113 Woodcreek Drive
Downers Grove, IL 60515

Dear Bob:

        This letter confirms our prior agreement that the EBITDA targets for 
FTD's 1997 fiscal year specified in the Key Management Incentive Plan shall 
replace the EBITDA targets for FTD's 1997 fiscal year set forth in your 
October 17, 1997 letter.



                                                Sincerely,


                                                /s/ Richard Perry

                                                Richard Perry 
                                                Chairman of the Board

Accepted as of this
6th day of June, 1997:

/s/ Robert L. Norton
--------------------
Robert L. Norton
#### Daniel A. OLIVER v. MILLIKEN AND FARWELL, INC., et al.

No. 11731.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Sept. 8, 1977.

*444Ashton L. Stewart, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Victor A. Sachse, Jr., Victor A. Sachse, III, Baton Rouge, Nat P. Phillips, Jr., New Orleans, for appellees.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and PONDER, JJ.

PONDER, Judge.

On June 9, 1977, the trial court signed a judgment accepting a survey report and map on some undivided alluvion. Willie Davis, a defendant, filed a motion for a new trial on June 20. Daniel A. Oliver, plaintiff, filed a similar motion on June 22, and then filed an appeal and bond on July 18. Milliken and Farwell, Inc., a defendant, moves to dismiss plaintiff’s appeal as being premature.

We dismiss.

The motion for a new trial filed by Davis was timely. While there is some divergence of jurisprudence, we agree with the statement in *Thibodeaux v. Lock Clinic,*322 So.2d 805 (La.App., 4th Cir., 1974), that “. . . Motion for new trial by one

> party ordinarily does not extend another’s delay for appealing, unless the nature of the proceeding is such that one party’s motion prevents the judgment from becoming final as to another; *Thurman v. Star Electric Supply, Inc.,*La.1973, 283 So.2d 212.”

As we understand the facts, a change in the judgment as to Davis, if a new trial be granted would almost inevitably affect the judgment as to all other parties. We therefore hold that the timely motion by Davis suspends the operation of the judgment.

We need not, therefore, consider the effect of the motion filed by plaintiff on June 22.

The appeal is dismissed.
**EXHIBIT 23.2**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements of AirNet Communications Corporation (the Company) on Form S-8 (No.333-31468 and No. 333019434) and on Form S-3 (No. 333-115698) of our report dated March 5, 2004, March 22, 2005 as to the effects of the restatement described in Note 2, (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes explanatoryparagraphs related to substantial doubt as to the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern and related to the restatement described in Note 2) appearing in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of AirNet Communications Corporation for the yearended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP 

 

Orlando, Florida 

March 25, 2005 ****
#### Barney Evans BROWN and Edwin Lampkin, Appellants, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-1017.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

June 29, 1971.

Pollack, Yocum & Fath and Alvin En-tin, Miami, for appellants.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Bruce L. Scheiner, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

The appellants were indicted for rape. They were found guilty by a jury, with a recommendation of mercy. The court adjudged them guilty and sentenced them to life imprisonment. Upon consideration of their appeal we find no reversible error has been made to appear, and affirm.

The appellants, two young black males, entered the residence of the victim and her parents on a certain night at about 2:00 A.M. They went into the room of the victim’s mother and robbed her. They then entered the bedroom where the victim was sleeping, and proceeded to rape her. They remained in the house for four hours, until approximately 6:00 A.M. The victim’s father, returned from his night employment shortly before 6:00 A.M. The appellants robbed him and appropriated his automobile in which they departed, proceeding in a northerly direction. The victim and her father gave pursuit in the victim’s automobile, but were unable to overtake the appellants.

At approximately 6:30 A.M. the appellants robbed the attendant of a gasoline service station north of the Dade-Broward County line. At trial the service station attendant testified with relation to the robbery, and that the men were using the automobile which was shown to have belonged to the victim’s father. The attendant identified the appellants. The fingerprints of the appellants were found on that automobile and also in the victim’s residence.

The appellants contend first that it was error to permit testimony relating to the service station robbery and, second, that the evidence relating to the identification involved improper procedures. We find those contentions to be without merit. The testimony relating to the conduct of *14the defendants at the service station was admissible on the ground of its relevance. Williams v. State, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 654; Gagnon v. State, Fla.App.1968, 212 So.2d 337. Added relevance is afforded here, where the appellants were challenging the evidence relating to identification. On considering the latter evidence as a whole we find no impropriety therein.

Affirmed.
Order entered September 24, 2015

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-15-00520-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF Z.C.M., M.R.M., AND E.P.M., CHILDREN

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF-13-22954

ORDER

Before the Court is the September 17, 2015 motion of court reporter Shantel Beheler for 

an extension of time to file the reporter’s record. In her motion, Ms. Beheler recites the 

following pertinent facts:

I received payment from Appellant yesterday, September 16, 2015, for a partial 

record of two witnesses (direct examination only).

Mr. Harter, counsel for appellee, requested that his cross-examination of the 

witnesses and exhibits be submitted also. I have requested that [appellant] pay for 

the remaining pages to be included. According to T.R.A.P. 34.6(c), [appellant] is 

responsible for the cost. He has refused and has told me to just file the direct 

examination of the two witnesses.

On September 23, 2015, we received the reporter’s record. It contains the direct testimony of 

two witnesses and four exhibits. The reporter’s record does not include the cross-examination 

testimony of the two witnesses. We GRANT Ms. Beheler’s motion and ORDER the reporter’s 

record tendered to this Court on September 23, 2015 filed as of that date. Because appellant has 
refused to pay for the portions of the record requested by appellee, we ORDER the appeal 

submitted on the incomplete reporter’s record. 

Appellant’s brief is due MONDAY, OCTOBER 26, 2015. 

We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by electronic 

transmission to Ms. Beheler and all parties.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG-MIERS 

JUSTICE
EXHIBIT  32.02

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

     In connection with the Quarterly Report of AvStar Aviation Group, Inc. (the
"Company")  on  Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with
the  Securities  and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof ("Report"),
the  undersigned,  in  the  capacities  and on the dates indicated below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act  of  2002,  that  to  his  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.

Dated:  November  22,  2010                    /s/  Robert  Wilson
                                                  -------------------
                                                  Robert  Wilson,
                                                  Chief  Financial  Officer