alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52534-52535]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26590]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-3-000]


Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation; Notice of Request for 
Extension of Waiver

October 2, 1997.
    Take notice that on September 15, 1997, Texas Eastern Transmission 
Corporation, (Texas Eastern) in

[[Page 52535]]

compliance with the March 13, 1997 \1\ and May 21, 1997 \2\ orders of 
the Commission in the captioned docket tendered for filing a request 
for an extension of the six month waiver previously granted by the 
Commission with respect to compliance with the data elements and 
formatting as adopted by the Commission in Order No. 587.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 78 FERC para. 61,282 
(1997).
    \2\ Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, 79 FERC para. 61,223 
(1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Texas Eastern states that under the waiver, it was required to 
submit its requests for changes for the data elements to the Gas 
Industry Standards Board (GISB). Texas Eastern states that it has 
implemented the changes already approved by GISB, but requests an 
extension of the waiver until the Commission adopts the next version of 
the GISB standards. With respect to those requests still pending at 
GISB, Texas Eastern requests an additional six month extension of time.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests should comply with 
principles set forth in the Commission's May 21, 1997 Order and must be 
filed by October 14, 1997. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining appropriate action to be taken, but will not 
serve to make protestants parties to the proceedings. Copies of this 
filing are on file with the Commission and are available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26590 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

November 15, 2001


Orrin J. Edidin
c/o WMS Industries Inc.
800 South Northpoint Blvd.
Waukegan, IL 60085


Dear Mr. Edidin:

Reference is made to your employment agreement, dated as of May 8, 2000, as
amended (the "Employment Agreement"), between WMS Industries Inc. (the
"Corporation") and you, and to the employee stock options currently held by you
described on Schedule A attached hereto (the "Existing Options").

This letter reflects our agreement to amend the Employment Agreement and the
Existing Options as set forth below. Capitalized terms used but not defined in
this amendment shall have the definitions given to them in the Employment
Agreement.

In the event of a Change of Control of the Corporation, or if any person or
entity or group of affiliated persons or entities who are not the owners of at
least 15% of the outstanding shares of voting securities of the Corporation on
the date hereof acquires more than 25% of the outstanding shares of the
Corporation's voting securities (each such event being an "Accelerated Vesting
Event"), all unexpired Existing Options owned by Executive on the date of the
Accelerated Vesting Event shall, if unvested, vest fully on the date of the
Accelerated Vesting Event notwithstanding any vesting provisions of such
options. All options hereafter granted to Executive by the Corporation shall
provide for substantially similar accelerated vesting.

In all other respects, the Employment Agreement and the Existing Options are
hereby confirmed and in full force and effect.

Please indicate your agreement to the foregoing by signing this letter in the
space provided below.

Very truly yours,
WMS INDUSTRIES INC.


/s/ BRIAN R. GAMACHE
Brian R. Gamache
President, Chief Executive Officer

                                                     ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:


                                                     /s/ Orrin J. Edidin
                                                     ---------------------------
                                                     Orrin J. Edidin
#### Leroy COLBROTH, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-192.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 10, 1970.

Appeal from Court of Record, Broward County; John G. Ferris, Judge.

Appeal quashed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                         324,896
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               324,896
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 578,976
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              315
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   578,976
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    10
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               196,437
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (196,427)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (196,427)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (196,427)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.02)


</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                             Dec-25-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                Dec-27-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                  Dec-25-1999
<CASH>                                        489
<SECURITIES>                                  0
<RECEIVABLES>                                 232
<ALLOWANCES>                                  0
<INVENTORY>                                   3378
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              4201
<PP&E>                                        74
<DEPRECIATION>                                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4275
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         27298
<BONDS>                                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                         0
<PREFERRED>                                   0
<COMMON>                                      15
<OTHER-SE>                                    (23038)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4275
<SALES>                                       6566
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                              6566
<CGS>                                         5641
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 3572
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                              0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            355
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (3002)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (3002)
<DISCONTINUED>                                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               0
<CHANGES>                                     0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (3002)
<EPS-BASIC>                                   (0.21)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (0.21)



</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23813]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM 98-1-64-000]


Pacific Interstate Offshore Company, Notice of Change in Rate

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, Pacific Interstate Offshore 
Company (``PIOC'') submitted for filing, to be part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, the following tariff sheet:

Second Revised Volume No. 1

Fourth Revised Sheet No. 6

    PIOC states the purpose of this filing is to set forth the 
applicable Annual Charge Adjustment (ACA) surcharge of .21 cents per 
Dth, effective October 1, 1997.
    A copy of this filing has been served on PIOC's sole customer, the 
Southern California Gas Company and the Public Utilities Commission of 
the State of California and other interested parties.
    Any persons desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance 
with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Regulations. All 
such motions or protests should 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. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23813 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
*

Honorable Henry A. Politz, U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit, sitting by designation. 

Kris Edward HELTON, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v.

SECRETARY FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 00-10097.

United States Court of Appeals,

Eleventh Circuit.

July 17, 2001.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida (No. 98-10110-CV-NCR);

Norman C. Roettger, Jr., Judge.

Before TJOFLAT, HILL and POLITZ*

, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

The petition for rehearing filed by the Secretary for the Department of Corrections is GRANTED.

The panel's prior opinion, Helton v. Secretary for the Dep't of Corrections, 233 F.3d 1322 (11th Cir.2000),

is hereby VACATED.

SO ORDERED.
109 STAT. 260 PUBLIC LAW 104–22—AUG. 14, 1995

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 2161:

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Aug. 2, considered and passed House.

Aug. 11, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–22

104th Congress

An Act

To extend authorities under the Middle East Peace Facilitation Act of 1994 until

October 1, 1995, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations

Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–

236), as amended by Public Law 104–17, is amended by striking

‘‘August 15, 1995,’’ and inserting ‘‘October 1, 1995,’’.

(b) CONSULTATION.—For purposes of any exercise of the authority provided in section 583(a) of the Foreign Relations Authorization

Act, Fiscal Years 1994 and 1995 (Public Law 103–236) prior to

August 16, 1995, the written policy justification dated June 1,

1995, and submitted to the Congress in accordance with section

583(b)(1) of such Act, and the consultations associated with such

policy justification, shall be deemed to satisfy the requirements

of section 583(b)(1) of such Act.

Approved August 14, 1995.

Ante, p. 191.

Aug. 14, 1995

[H.R. 2161]
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of RPM Advantage, Inc.
(the "Registrant") for the period ended June 30, 2008, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
David R. Pressler, Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted 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, as amended; 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:   July 15, 2011

By:

/s/ David R. Pressler


David R. Pressler
Chief Financial Officer
(principal financial officer)
Osbaldo A. Saenz Sr., Estela 

G. Saenz Trust by and through 

its trustee Esther A.S. Salmon 

and the Estate of Alfredo G. 

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 3, 2014

No. 04-14-00040-CV

Osbaldo A. SAENZ, Jr.,

Appellant

v.

Osbaldo A. SAENZ, Sr., Estela G. Saenz, Trust by and through its Trustee Esther A.S. Salmon 

and the Estate of Alfredo G. Tijerina and Estella Tijerina,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC-12-520

Honorable Ana Lisa Garza, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

On January 28, 2014, the district clerk filed a notification of late record stating that the 

clerk’s record has not been filed because appellant has failed to pay or make arrangements to pay 

the clerk’s fee for preparing the record and appellant is not entitled to appeal without paying the 

fee.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that appellant provide written proof to this court within ten 

days of the date of this order that either (1) the clerk’s fee has been paid or arrangements have 

been made to pay the clerk’s fee; or (2) appellant is entitled to appeal without paying the clerk’s 

fee. If appellant fails to respond within the time provided, this appeal may be dismissed for want 

of prosecution. See TEX. R. APP. P. 37.3(b).

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 3rd day of February, 2014.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
July 6, 2011

Mr. Craig Chilcote Vice President Safety, Security and Compliance Pinnacle Airlines, Inc. 1689 Nonconnoh Boulevard, Ste. 111 Memphis, TN 38132

Dear Mr. Chilcote:

This is in response to your June 23, 2011 letter (public docket No. FAA-2011-0049) petitioning the Federal Aviation Administration on behalf of Pinnacle Airlines, Inc, (Pinnacle) for a reconsideration of denial of an exemption from part 120 of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). That exemption, if granted, would allow Pinnacle to operate its drug and alcohol testing program in unison with Mesaba Aviation, Inc. d.b.a. Mesaba Airlines (Mesaba), drug and alcohol program.

After careful consideration, the FAA does not cons ider this a reconsideration of our denial based on your admission that the plans for the merger of Mesaba have changed. Because of your new situation and circumstances you should submit a new request for exemption, based on the current merger with Mesaba and Colgan. It's important that you include the facts and circumstances of how this exemption would meet Part 11 requirements. For us to consider the new request, 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 exemption wouldn’t 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.2

Lastly, to ensure every aspect would be considered, please ensure your new petition for exemption is coordinated along with Colgan’s petition.

At this time, we will take no further action on your petition.

Sincerely,

/s/ Ida M. Klepper Manager, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 96-7243

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

PATRICIA RAE FRUETEL, a/k/a Joe, a/k/a The

Expert,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. John A. MacKenzie, Senior District

Judge. (CR-91-70-N, CA-95-983-N)

Submitted: January 23, 1997 Decided: February 4, 1997

Before RUSSELL, WILKINS, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Patricia Rae Fruetel, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart,

Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

her motion filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994), amended by Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-

132, 110 Stat. 1214. We have reviewed the record and the district

court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we

deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the

reasoning of the district court. United States v. Fruetel, Nos.

CR-91-70-N; CA-95-983-N (E.D. Va. July 22, 1996). We dispense with

oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 9
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                                        <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                           2,319
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                           9,499
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                          0
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        213,400
<ALLOWANCE>                                      1,039
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 272,863
<DEPOSITS>                                     128,060
<SHORT-TERM>                                    82,754
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             20,320
<LONG-TERM>                                     10,927
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,801
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 272,863
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 16,084
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                  408
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                     0
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                16,492
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                               3,760
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              10,490
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                            6,002
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      143
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                   0
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 22,951
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  5,379
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                       3,273
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     3,273
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .76
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .76
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.43
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,903
<LOANS-PAST>                                         0
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                   943
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                       63
<RECOVERIES>                                        16
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                1,039
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                                 0
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                          1,039


</TABLE>
### Magnitude and frequency of floods in the United States, part 11. Pacific slope basin in California: Vol.1. Coastal basins south of the Klamath River basin and Central Valley drainage from the West

By: L. E. YoungR.W. Cruff

                            https://doi.org/10.3133/wsp1685

#### Links

-                                                                                                                             Document:                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  **Report**                                                                                                     (pdf)                                                                                                                                     
- Plates:                               - **Plate 1**                            (pdf)
  - **Plate 2**                            (pdf) 
- NGMDB Index Page:  **National Geologic Map Database Index Page**
- Download citation as:  RIS                         |                         Dublin                            Core

#### Abstract

No abstract available.

#### Study Area

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.