alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 177 (Friday, September 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48058]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24263]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 080697D]


Request for Nomination of Individuals for the Federal Investment 
Task Force (Deadline Extension)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of request for nominations deadline extension.

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

SUMMARY: The Sustainable Fisheries Act (SFA) requires the Secretary of 
Commerce (Secretary) to establish a task force to study the role of the 
Federal Government in subsidizing fleet capacity and influencing 
capital investment in fisheries. NMFS is extending the deadline for 
nominations of qualified individuals to serve on the task force.

DATES: Nominations will now be accepted through October 1, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Nominations should be sent to Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission, 1444 Eye Street, NW, 6th Floor, Washington, DC 
20005, ATTN: Federal Investment Task Force. Nominations may be 
submitted by fax, (202) 289-6051

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert Beal, Atlantic States Marine 
Fisheries Commission, (202) 289-6400.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary is establishing a task force 
of interested parties to study the role of the Federal Government in 
(1) subsidizing the expansion and contraction of fishing capacity in 
fishing fleets the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management 
Act, and (2) otherwise influencing the aggregate capital investment in 
fisheries. The original request for nominations was published in the 
Federal Register at Vol. 62, No. 167/Thursday August 28, 1997, page 
45628. However, in order to allow sufficient time for all interested 
parties to submit nominations, the deadline for submission has been 
extended through October 1, 1997. The procedures and guidelines for 
submitting nominations can be found in the original Federal Register 
notice.
    Please note: The task force is now tentatively scheduled to meet 
five times between November 1997 and June 1997.
    Dated: September 8, 1997.
David L. Evans,
Deputy Assistant Administrator for Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-24263 Filed 9-9-97; 3:19 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

GENE M. SPENNATI, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : CIVIL NO. 4:CV-13-1919

:

COMMONWEALTH OF PA., : (Judge Brann)

:

Respondent :

ORDER

April 17, 2015

In accordance with the accompanying Memorandum, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED THAT:

1. Spennati’s habeas corpus petition is DISMISSED. 

2. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.

3. Based on the Court’s conclusion herein, there is no basis

for the issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

1

Case 4:13-cv-01919-MWB-JVW Document 18 Filed 04/17/15 Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 10.1
 As Amended and Restated Effective January 1, 2009
 Purpose
  Definitions




---



##### 








---



##### 








---



##### 



Administration




---



##### 



Eligibility
  Shares Available
  Term
  Participation
  Stock Options
 General




---



##### 



Terms and Conditions of Stock Options
 Restrictions Relating to Incentive Stock Options
 Exercise of Stock Options




---



##### 



Restricted Stock
 General
 Restrictions on Restricted Stock
 Rights as Stockholders




---



##### 



Evidence of Restricted Stock Award
 Termination of Employment
  Nonassignability
  Adjustment of Shares Available
 Changes in Stock
 Changes in Capitalization




---



##### 



Limitation of Committee Discretion
 Tax Withholding
 Payment by Participant
 Payment in Stock




---



##### 



Noncompetition Provision
  Dividends
  Amendments of Awards
  Regulatory Approvals and Listings




---



##### 



No Rights to Continued Employment or Awards
  Amendment
  Change in Control or Change in Ownership
 Background
 Vesting and Lapse of Restrictions
 Payment
 Section 16 of Exchange Act




---



##### 



Miscellaneous
 Legal Fees
 No Right, Title or Interest in Company Assets
  Governing Law
  Compliance with Section 409A.
 Awards Intended To Be Excluded From Section 409A




---



##### 



Non-excluded Awards Must Comply With Section 409A
 Protection of the Company and Others
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 175 (Wednesday, September 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47658]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23917]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-315-004]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Compliance Filing

September 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 29, 1997, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Third 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to become effective 
September 1, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 232-H
First Revised Sheet No. 232-I
First Revised Sheet No. 232-J
Original Sheet No. 232-K

    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's July 30, 1997 order in this proceeding, which requires 
Northwest to revise certain scheduling provisions proposed in 
conjunction with providing a pooling service.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's jurisdictional customers and upon interested state 
regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. 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. 97-23917 Filed 9-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,

AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350 (as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002), I, the undersigned Chief Executive Officer and Acting ChiefFinancial Officer of Bancorp International Group, Inc. (the “Company”), herebycertify that, to the best of my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSBof the Company for the three months ended June 30, 2006 (the “Quarterly Report”)fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the AnnualReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
| Date:   August  16, 2006 | /S/THOMAS MEGAS                                          |
|------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|
|                               | Chief Executive Officer

Acting Chief Financial  Officer |

 

----
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

KYLE BROWN, : Case No. 4:14-cv-0410

:

Plaintiff, : (Judge Brann)

:

v. :

:

AMERICAN SINTERED :

TECHONOLOGIES, : 

:

Defendant. :

ORDER

March 3, 2015

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

HEREBY ORDERED THAT:

1. The Defendant’s Motion for Reconsideration is GRANTED in part,

and DENIED in part (ECF No. 30).

2. The Court’s Order of November 20, 2014 (ECF No. 28) is

VACATED.

3. The Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint

(ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.

4. The Defendant shall file an answer or responsive pleading on or

before March 23, 2015.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Matthew W. Brann 

Matthew W. Brann

United States District Judge

Case 4:14-cv-00410-MWB Document 35 Filed 03/03/15 Page 1 of 1
#### Agnes LAIRD, Appellant, v. CHICAGO INSURANCE CO., Appellee.

No. 69-202.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Oct. 21, 1969.

Agnes Laird, in pro. per.

Taylor, Brion, Bilker, Hames, Greene & Whitworth, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ. PEARSON, Chief Judge.

Agnes Laird, plaintiff below, appeals from a final judgment for the defendant, Chicago Insurance Company. The judgment was entered upon a jury verdict for the defendant.

Appellant presents nine points on appeal. Each of these points urges error upon the trial of the issue created by the defendant’s answer that appellant’s claim was barred by an alleged failure to make proof of loss under the policy. This issue was submitted to the jury. It is appellant’s position that the defendant insuance company waived its right to proof of loss by continuing to negotiate with her until the time for filing proof of loss had passed.

An insurance company may by its conduct waive its right to receive timely proof of loss. See Indian River State Bank v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 46 Fla. 283,35 So. 228 (1903); Mutual Ben. Health & Accident Ass’n v. Bunting, 133 Fla. 646, 183 So. 321 (1938). However we are unable to hold that appellant has demonstrated reversible error because she has not furnished us with a transcript of the testimony or evidence at the trial. We are unable to say that the issue of failure to make proof of loss was not presented by the evidence, nor are we able to say that the issue of waiver was presented by the evidence. Therefore the judgment must be affirmed under the rule stated in Brown v. Householder, Fla.App.1961, 134 So.2d 801; Crosby v. Stubblebine, Fla.App.1962, 142 So.2d 358; Short v. Short, Fla.App. 1964, 162 So.2d 538.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      EXHIBIT 21



                    SUBSIDIARIES OF MEDICAL ASSURANCE, INC.

The Medical Assurance Company, Inc. (Alabama)
         Mutual Assurance Agency of Ohio, Inc. (Ohio)
         MAI Corporation (Delaware)
                   Mutual Assurance Agency, Inc. (Alabama)
                   PROActive Insurance Corporation (Alabama)
                   Educational Services Institute, Inc. (Alabama)
                   Elow, Inc. (Alabama)
Medical Assurance of West Virginia, Inc. (West Virginia)
Medical Assurance of Indiana, Inc. (Indiana)
MOMED Holding Co. (Missouri)
         Missouri Medical Insurance Company (Missouri)
         Professional Liability Associates, Inc. (Missouri)
         Momedico Professional Services, Inc. (Missouri)
Specialty Underwriters Reinsurance Facility (Bermuda)
Physicians Insurance Co. of Indiana Agency, Inc. (Indiana)
The Woodfield Co. (Indiana)
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsFrom S-N to the Paris Law with a New Mixed-Mode Cohesive Fatigue ModelThe relationship between fatigue life and fatigue crack propagation rate is explored with a new cohesive damage model. The parameters of the model are obtained from idealizations of S-N diagrams used in engineering design. The model is based on the hypothesis that both stable tearing damage and damage due to cyclic loading are representations of a density of microcracks and, therefore, a single damage variable can describe the state of damage. This assumption implies that the quasi-static cohesive law that describes tearing is also the envelope of the fatigue damage. Fatigue damage within the cohesive envelope is assumed to accumulate at a rate that depends on the displacement jumps. The fatigue model was implemented as a UMAT subroutine for Abaqus cohesive elements by adding fatigue damage accumulation to a cohesive model based on the Turon mixed-mode cohesive laws. The analyses were conducted using a simplified cyclic loading procedure in which the maximum applied load is kept constant and the computational expense of cycling the load is avoided. The predicted propagation rates in mode I and mixed mode were compared to experimental results for IM7/8552 graphite/epoxy tape. Several aspects of the results were investigated, including the effect of R-curves, the stress ratio R, and the difference between displacement control and force control.Document ID20180004395Acquisition SourceLangley Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Publication (TP)AuthorsDavila, Carlos G.*(NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, VA, United States)*Date AcquiredAugust 10, 2018Publication DateJune 1, 2018Subject CategoryComposite MaterialsReport/Patent NumberNASA/TP-2018-219838NF1676L-30358Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 826611.04.07.01Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.Available DownloadsNameType20180004395.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of GSI Group Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended April 3, 2009 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael E. Katzenstein, Principal Executive 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 the best of my knowledge:

(1) the Report fully complies with the
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.

/s/ Michael E. KatzensteinMichael E. KatzensteinPrincipal Executive Officer


October 1, 2010

This Certification shall not
be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section, or incorporated by reference into any of the Companys filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference in any such filings to the Report.

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form with the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been
provided to GSI Group Inc. and will be retained by GSI Group Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**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





In
      connection with the Quarterly Report of Roo Group, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form
      10-Q for the quarter  ended
      March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
      date
      hereof (the “Report”), I, Kaleil Isaza Tuzman, Chief Executive Officer of the
      Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      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 SecuritiesExchange
                  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.




The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section  1350
      and
      is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act
      of
      1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing
      of
      the Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
      general incorporation language in such filing.





Dated:
                  May 15 , 2008
              By:
              /s/
                  Kaleil Isaza TuzmanKaleil
                  Isaza TuzmanChief
                  Executive Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

PAUL GORE

, §

§ No. 539 , 2017

Defendant Below, §

Appellant

, § Court Below

— Superior Court of the

§ State of Delaware

v. §

§ Cr. ID No. 1504001939 (S)

STATE OF DELAWARE, §

§

Plaintiff Below

, §

Appellee. §

Submitted: February 9 , 2018

Decided: February 20 , 2018

O R D E R

T he Clerk issued a notice to show cause directing the appellant to show cause

why th is appeal should not be dismissed for the appellant’s failure to file a motion

to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee associated with the appeal

. Th e

appellant did not respond to the notice to show cause within the required ten

- day

period

. Accordingly, d ismissal of th e appeal is deemed to be unopposed.

N OW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2)

and 29(b), that th e appeal is DISMISSED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Leo E. Strine, Jr.

Chief Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,236
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,860
<OTHER-SE>                                     (2,535)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  (2,776)
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (2,776)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (2,776)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (2,776)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.002)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Pocono Manor Investors, LP, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 133 M.D. 2018

: ARGUED: March 13, 2019

Department of Environmental :

Protection of the Commonwealth of :

Pennsylvania and Environmental :

Quality Board of the Commonwealth :

of Pennsylvania, :

Respondents :

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

O R D E R

NOW, this 5

th day of June, 2019, it is ordered that the above-captioned 

Memorandum Opinion, filed May 6, 2019, shall be designated OPINION and shall 

be REPORTED. 

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
#### Henry Louis REED, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-712.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 17, 1970.

Henry Louis Reed, in pro. per.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., for appellee.

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

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant, and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY WATER-SUPPLY PAPER 969 PLATE 9

1938 1939
JUNE JULY August SEPTEMBER acToseR Se FShE222SR ES
S10 15 20 28 30 5 10 15 20 2530 5 0 5 2025 90 5 10 15 2025305 0 1 masse Stace s 3 zH Ses
99.5)
. 4318 Well 1
bie 2
T wel +
t+ oT
90.5 15{50, —] 7.
NI
99.0
WS 598 Well’ aA
99.0 t
aS 19 | wells
= 99.0
]
é
<
a 99.5 Cory Wall 6:
5 St
Ww
3 99.0
2
a
g 99.5)
88183
w Wall 7
2
6 99.0]
o
<
Hy ae 6169
Ww Weil 8
ira
99.0
z
‘ i
19. t
of a5 74J60 Walid)
rf
Es
99.0
«
S
< 99.5) Teale
To _| wet 10 Bal
pT
99.0
5
| [7350
TM LEN Well 12} pt
990
Note.-Number at beginning of each graph indicates
depth of water level below measuring point ite
in feet
99.0 We
as 101s
2af2//] Cit PN Well
290 10109)
| 44
1005} 4
. Lt
voao =
LT |
1934 1935 1936 1937 1938 90: Deke its,
‘ Heo 3 cee x > EEE : eee fg ft |
ZGSEZSSSEBSSESTE RSIS RE SG eae TEAS hes gee ee TP ZGsEe sue add >
pea SEERESS IESE ESET ETSIZESE REEL ERS ISESSEZELETS RGR Seg EEE 3
iB T
sh 17
905
2156 —=
al fap ey
103,53) Bare
00 1000 ——
—++|_| + weirs
‘aa saueal +} |
(oc)
tooo sa ~
NM N
N 4 Ea |
905 N su +}
BB
99 1010
=
a
Ee 1005
a
° 3.79
uw 0009]
= ~
= eo pa
® oas ~ i
i =
< Well 378
uw
2 io20 a0
i} Cr Nes
< (| N
A tots sas| =e
uy
Ww
& 1010 98.0} =
z
J 005
wu 12.143] SO
a N ae
ey TMs TM
100.0 800)
a Y
sas 00s
Z
100.0 ae
ry Well 3i6
NL
os
7)
so
ry
=
&
oes =
z ZG
980 > 300
=
fe Y
os < on
: ys y
8 200
& Fy
Y Y yyy
00
Y Ly GG YYGG4 H Y
Y yY 1} YW Y Y G f | A
° fi Hie Ab A

(604487 © - 46 (ln pocket)

HYDROGRAPHS OF OBSERVATION WELLS IN BOX BUTTE COUNTY, NEBRASKA, FOR THE YEARS 1934-39