alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 4 (Tuesday, January 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 1000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-265]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Networking and Communications Research 
and Infrastructure; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting.

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Networking and Communications 
(#1207).
    Date and Time: January 27, 28 & 29, 1997; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 1175, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Blvd., Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person(s): Aubrey Bush, Deputy Division Director, CISE/
NCRI, Room 1175, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, 
Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1950.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate proposals submitted for the 
Career Program.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries, and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: January 2, 1997.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-265 Filed 1-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )

)

vs. ) Criminal No. 02-40 ERIE

) Civil Action No. 06-165 ERIE

JOHN H. COOLEY, JR., )

Defendant. )

ORDER

AND NOW this 12th day of September, 2006, after consideration of the Defendant’s 

Letter, which the Court construes as a Motion for Reconsideration

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the said motion be and hereby is DENIED

 

 S/Sean J. McLaughlin 

Sean J. McLaughlin

United States District Judge

cc: counsel/parties of record NK 

Case 1:06-cv-00165-SJM Document 4 Filed 09/12/06 Page 1 of 1
<PAGE>




                                                                    Exhibit 23.1


                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



Board of Directors:
PARAVANT INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

         We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-62851, 333-63528, 333-63524 and 333-63522) and
Form S-3 (No. 333-82649) of Paravant Inc. and subsidiaries of our report dated
November 15, 2001, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Paravant inc.
and subsidiaries as of September 30, 2001 and 2000 and the related consolidated
statements of operations, stockholders' equity and comprehensive income and cash
flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 30, 2001,
which report appears in the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Paravant Inc. and
subsidiaries.



                                    KPMG LLP



Short Hills, New Jersey
December 21, 2001
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Christopher RAMBIN.

No. 62153.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Christopher Rambin applying for writ of certiorari. Parish of Caddo.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 99.2





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 Hooker Furniture Corporation (the Company) Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, E. Larry Ryder, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to
the best of my knowledge:





| | (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:  October 10, 2002



By:

/s/    E. LARRY RYDERE. Larry Ryder Chief
Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 181 (Thursday, September 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 48983]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-24778]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Notice of Proposed Change to the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service's National Handbook of Conservation Practices

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), U.S. Department 
of Agriculture, New York State Office.

ACTION: Notice of availability of proposed changes in the NRCS National 
Handbook of Conservation Practices, Section IV of the New York State 
NRCS Field Office Technical Guide (FOTG) for review and comment.

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

SUMMARY: It is the intention of NRCS to issue a series of new 
conservation practice standards in its National Handbook of 
Conservation Practices. These new standards include; Grass Filter Strip 
(NY393s) and Grass Filter Area (NY393a).

DATES: Comments will be received on or before October 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Inquire in writing to Richard D. Swenson, State Conservationist, 
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), 441 S. Salina Street, 
Fifth Floor, Suite 354, Syracuse, New York, 13202-2450.
    Copies of these standards are available from the above individual.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 343 of the Federal Agricultural 
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 states that revisions made after 
enactment of the law to NRCS State Technical Guides used to carry out 
highly erodible land and wetland provisions of the law shall be made 
available for public review and comment. For the next 30 days the NRCS 
will receive comments relative to the proposed changes. Following that 
period a determination will be made by the NRCS regarding disposition 
of those comments and a final determination of change will be made.
Richard D. Swenson,
State Conservationist, Natural Resources Conservation Service, 
Syracuse, NY.
[FR Doc. 97-24778 Filed 9-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-M
IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 23

- 00205

- CV

IN RE PENNENERGY RESOURCES, LLC

Original Proceeding

From the 82nd District Court

Robertson County, Texas

Trial Court No. 22

- 09

- 21523

- CV

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Relator PennEnergy Resources, LLC’s “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” is denied.

Relator’s “Verified Emergency Motion to Stay Pending Mandamus Review” is dismissed

as moot

.

MATT JOHNSON

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Johnson , and

Justice Smith

Petition denied

Opinion delivered and filed July 7, 2023

[OT06]
| **INTEGRITY MUTUAL FUNDS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES** | Exhibit 31.2 |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------------|

** **

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Heather Ackerman, certify that:

 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Integrity Mutual Funds, Inc.;

 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this annual report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;

 

3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this annual report;

 

4.    I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

 

a)    designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this annual report is being prepared;

 

b)    evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the “Evaluation Date”); and

 

c)    presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

 

5.    I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

a)    all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

 

b)    any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and

 

6.    I have indicated in this annual report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

 

 

 
| Date:  March 30, 2004 | By /s/ Heather Ackerman    |
|----------------------------|----------------------------|
|                       | -------------------------- |
|                       | Heather Ackerman           |
|                       | Chief Financial Officer    |
|                       | And Controller             |
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3092 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 3092

    To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation of 
  pulsating light systems for high-mounted stop lamps, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 19, 2023

Mr. Tillis (for himself and Mr. Boozman) introduced the following bill; 
    which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, 
                      Science, and Transportation

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
    To clarify certain regulations to allow for the installation of 
  pulsating light systems for high-mounted stop lamps, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Collision Avoidance Systems Act of 
2023''.

SEC. 2. REAR-END COLLISION AVOIDANCE SYSTEMS.

    (a) Definitions.--In this section:
            (1) Pulsating light system.--The term ``pulsating light 
        system'' means a system for a high-mounted stop lamp in which--
                    (A) when the brake of the vehicle is applied, the 
                lamp pulses rapidly not more than 4 times and for not 
                more than 1.2 seconds, after which the lamp converts to 
                a continuous light as a normal stop lamp until the time 
                the brake is released; and
                    (B) the pulses described in subparagraph (A) may 
                not repeat on a subsequent application of the brake of 
                the vehicle for a lock-out period of at least 5 seconds 
                after the release of the brake described in that 
                subparagraph.
            (2) Standard 108.--The term ``Standard 108'' means Federal 
        Motor Vehicle Safety Standard Number 108, contained in section 
        571.108 of title 49, Code of Federal Regulations (or a 
        successor regulation).
    (b) Clarification on Pulsating Light Systems.--Beginning on the 
date of enactment of this Act, Standard 108 shall be deemed to allow 
for the use of pulsating light systems on vehicles covered by Standard 
108.
    (c) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of 
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Transportation shall promulgate 
such regulations as are necessary to update Standard 108--
            (1) to include performance-based standards for pulsating 
        light systems; and
            (2) to allow for the use of pulsating light systems on 
        motor vehicles covered by Standard 108.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



EXHIBIT 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

I, Richard J. Westin, Chief Executive Officer of Agemark Corporation (the
Registrant), do hereby certify in accordance with 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, based on my
knowledge:



| |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | (1) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Registrant, to which this
certification is attached as an exhibit (the Report), fully complies
with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); and
|
| | (2) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.                                                                                       

|                       |  |                                          
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2002 |  | /s/ RICHARD J. WESTIN                    
|                       |  |                                          
|                       |  | Richard J. Westin
Chief Executive Officer

17
|   | 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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| By:  | /s/ Dr. Santanu Das                        |
|-----------|--------------------------------------------|
|      | Dr.      Santanu Das                       |
|      | Chief      Executive Officer and President |
|      | March      13, 2009                        |

----

| *  | A      signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has      been provided to TranSwitch Corporation and will be retained by TranSwitch      Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its      staff upon request. |
|---------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
#### Homer Lee ERWIN, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-251.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

April 13, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

EDWARD J. NICHOLAS, )

Plaintiff, )

) C.A. No. 06-206 Erie

v. )

) District Judge McLaughlin

AMERICAN DETECTIVE AGENCY, ) Magistrate Judge Baxter

et al., )

Defendants. )

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

I. RECOMMENDATION

It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice

to Plaintiff’s right to pay the filing fee of $350.00 before October 23, 2006. 

II. REPORT

Plaintiff, an inmate incarcerated at the State Correctional Institution at Albion, presented

this civil rights complaint, along with a request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. 

Section 804(g) of Pub.L. No. 104-134, enacted April 26, 1996, amended 28 U.S.C. §

1915 to provide:

[i]n no events shall a prisoner bring a civil action ... under this section if the

prisoner has, on 3 or more prior occasions, while incarcerated or detained in any

facility, brought an action or appeal in the court of the United States that was

dismissed on the grounds that it is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim

upon which relief may be granted, unless the prisoner is under imminent danger

of serious physical injury.

28 U.S.C. §1915(g).

Plaintiff has been a prolific advocate in this federal court. At least three of Plaintiff’s

prior lawsuits have been dismissed as legally frivolous: Civil Actions Numbers 06-98 Erie, 06-

112 Erie, and 06-201 Erie, all filed in the United States District Court for the Western District of

Case 1:06-cv-00206-SJM-SPB Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 1 of 2
2

Pennsylvania. 

An indigent inmate may overcome the “Three Strikes Rule” if he can show that he is

under “imminent danger of serious physical injury.” Abdul-Akbar v. McKelvie, 239 F.3d 307

(3d Cir. 2001) (interpreting imminent danger). Plaintiff has not alleged such imminent danger.

Accordingly, Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee before October 23, 2006, or risk

dismissal of this action.

III. CONCLUSION

Because of these prior dismissals, and because Plaintiff has not alleged that he is in

imminent danger of serious physical injury, it is recommended that the complaint be dismissed

without prejudice to Plaintiff’s right to pay the full filing fee of $350.00 to the Clerk of Courts

before October 23, 2006. 

In accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C), and Local

Rule 72.1.4B, the parties are allowed ten (10) days from the date of service to file written

objections to this report. Any party opposing the objections shall have seven (7) days from the

date of service of objections to respond thereto. Failure to timely file objections may constitute

a waiver of any appellate rights.

S/ Susan Paradise Baxter

SUSAN PARADISE BAXTER

Chief United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: October 3, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00206-SJM-SPB Document 3 Filed 10/03/06 Page 2 of 2
# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5338 September Term, 2020 1: 19-cv -017 30-A BJ Filed O n: July 23, 2 021 Jam es S . Bu cholz,

App ellant
v . Jane t L. Yellen, in he r of f icial capa city

as Secret aryof

the United Sta tes De partm entof the T reasu ry , etal.,

App ellees
ON A PPE A L FROM THE UNITED STA TES DIS TRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BEFORE: Rogers, Millett, an d K atsa s, Circuit Jud ges J U D G M E N T T his ap pea l was co nside red o n th e reco rd f rom the United Sta tes District Cou rt for th e District of

Colum bia a nd on the briefs f iled b y the pa rties. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P

. 34(a )(2); D.C. Cir. Rule 34 (j). It is ORDERED A ND A DJUDGED tha t th e d istrict court’s o rder f iled S ept em ber 1 0, 202 0, b e a f

f irmed . T he district cou rt correctly conclud ed tha t ap pellan t failed to st ate a claim tha t th e a ssessm entof the sha red resp onsib ility pa y me nt a gainst him is a v iolation of

his d ue proce ss rig hts u nde r the Fif th A me ndm ent . S ee 26 U.S.C. § 50 00A ; Nation al Fed eratio n o f

Ind epe nde nt B usine ss v. Sebe lius, 56 7 U.S . 51 9, 5 75 (201 2); Associa tion of

Am erican Physicians an d S urgeons v . Se belius, 74 6 F.3 d 4 68, 47 0 (D.C. Cir. 201 4). A dditio nally, the only prope r defend antin a ref und suit is t he United Sta tes, see 26 U.S.C. § 74 22(f ), an d a ppe llant h as n ot a lleged a cause of actio n u nde r the Adm inistrative Proced ure A ct, 5 U.S.C. § 7 02. T he district cou rt also correctly conclu ded tha t ap pellan t failed to st ate a ca use of actio n u nde r Biv ens against t he two fede ral em ployees in the ir person al cap acities. Ap pellan t ha s no t ide ntif ied a const itution al violation b y the se e mp loyees. S ee Associa tion of Am erican Physicians and Su rg eon s, 74 6 F.3 d a t 47 0; P hillips v. Comm issioner, 283 U.S. 589 , 59 5 (19 31).

# U n i ted S t a te s Cou r t o f Appe a l s F OR T HE D IS TRICT OF C OLUM BIA C IRCUI T

___ ___ ___ ___ 

## No. 20-5338 September Term, 2020
Pursua nt t o D.C. Circuit Ru le 36 , th is dispo sition will no t be pu blished . T he Clerk is directe d to w ithho ld issua nce of the m and ate he rein u ntil seven d ays af ter reso lution of an y tim ely petition for rehe aring or pe tition for rehe aring en ban c. S ee Fed. R. Ap p. P. 4 1(b); D.C. Cir. Rule 41

. Per Curiam
FOR THE COURT: Mark J. La nger, Clerk BY: /s/ Daniel J. Reidy Depu ty Cl erk

Page 2
#### Larry McCLAIN, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-26.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 8, 1970.

Walter R. Talley, Public Defender, and D. Turner Matthews, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Morton J. Hanlon, Asst. Atty. Gen., Lakeland, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on authority of Kaminski v. State, Fla.1954, 72 So.2d 400; Champlin v. State, Fla.App.1960, 122 So.2d 412; Whitter v. State, Fla.App.1970, 237 So.2d 52. Opinion filed July 8, 1970.

LILES, Acting C. J., and MANN and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
U.S. Department ofTransportation, Attn: Dockets OST 98-3304 400 Seventh St. S.W. PL401 Washington DC, 20590 USA 

### lOth January 2012

Dear Sir, '**-~** ; ':; c .._1 ! . --, ,., i

.**.:~·** CJ Kenyon House 1TheWestern Centre Western Road Bracknell RG121RW Telephone (24 hrs): +44 (0) 1344 316 650 Fax: +44 (0) 1344 316 699 Email: kenyon@kenyonintemational.com Website: www.kenyonintemational.com

This letter is to inform you that, Kenyon International Emergency Services has cancelled its contractto provide emergency response services to Dutch Antilles Express. From 

### 17th January 2013 Kenyon will no longer provide third partysupportto Dutch Antilles Express, in the event ofany incident, underthe U.S. Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act of 1996. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please do not hesitateto contact me atthe above address. Yours sincerely,

Jeremy Allen Vice President Cc: Arnold Leonora -CEO, Dutch Antilles Express Jeanette Martinez- Flight Safety Officer, Dutch Antilles Express Hughbert Delsol- Quality Assurance, Safety and Security Manager, Dutch Antilles Express