alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54836]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 101597A]


Marine Mammals

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

ACTION: Issuance of photography permit no. 860-1374

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that Mr. Michael deGruy, The Film Crew, 
629 State Street, Suite 222, Santa Barbara, California 93101, has been 
issued a permit to take by Level B harassment gray whales (Eschrichtius 
robustus) and northern elephant seals (Mirounga angustirostris) for 
purposes of commercial photography.

ADDRESSES: The permit and related documents are available for review 
upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130, Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Regional Administrator, Southwest Region, NMFS, 501 West Ocean 
Blvd., Suite 4200, Long Beach, CA 90802-4213 (562/980-4001).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeannie Drevenak, (301) 713-2289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 3, 1997, notice was published 
in the Federal Register (62 FR 46484) that the above-named applicant 
had submitted a request for a permit to take gray whales and northern 
elephant seals by Level B harassment during the course of commercial 
photographic activities in California waters. The requested permit has 
been issued, under the authority of section 104(c)(6) of the Marine 
Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.).

    Dated: October 15, 1997.
Ann D. Terbush, Chief,
Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected Resources, 
National Marine Fisheries Service
[FR Doc. 97-27929 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA 

ROSEANNA M. WAYNE, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

CHILDCARE INFORMATION 

SERVICES OF ERIE COUNTY, et al., 

Civil Action No. 05-271 Erie 

Defendants. I 

MEMORANDUMORDER 

This action was received by the Clerk of Court on September 20,2005, and was 

referred to United States Magistrate Judge Susan Paradise Baxter for report and 

recommendation in accordance with the Magistrates Act, 28 U.S.C. fj 636(b)(I), and 

Rules 72.1.3 and 72.1.4 of the Local Rules for Magistrates. 

The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 141, filed on May 

22, 2006, recommended that the motion to dismiss and motion to strike filed 

by Defendant Monarch Properties Corporation [Doc. No. 61 be granted in part and 

denied in part. The parties were allowed ten (1 0) days from the date of service to file 

objections. Service was made on Plaintiff by certified mail and on Defendants. No 

objections were filed. After de novo review of the motion and documents in the case, 

together with the Report and Recommendation, the following order is entered: 

AND NOW, this 20th day of June, 2006; 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant 

Monarch Properties Corporation [Doc. No. 61 is DENIED; and the motion to strike is 

GRANTED. 

The Report and Recommendation [Doc. No. 141 of Magistrate Judge Baxter, filed 

on May 22, 2006, is adopted as the opinion of the Court. 

S/ Sean J. McLaughlin United States District Judge 

cm: All parties of record 

Susan Paradise Baxter, U.S. Magistrate Judge 

Case 1:05-cv-00271-SJM-SPB Document 18 Filed 06/20/06 Page 1 of 1
Hi. My name is Anne Usher and I'm a former journaiist and volunteer with the Virginia chapter of the Sierra Club. Thank you for holding this hearing. For more than 40 years, air pollution has been regulated by the Environmental Protection Agency because of its direct harm to Americans' heaith. The EPA now has an equal - and scientists wouid argue more urgent duty - to reguiate CO2 emissions. It is now beyond dispute that these emissions will not oniy impact the giobal environment and our environment here at home, but 4 1 'aiso directty and indirectty Impac>jpur weifare as human beings. Here on the east coast, we have witnessed the ravaging effects of Hurricane Sandy. Climate scientists predict we will see more superstorms, sea level rise that will alter our coastlines and more prolonged droughts such as we've witnessed in Texas. In northem Virginia where I live, this ability to regulate carbon emissions has never been more crucial. Just under half the electricity that powers my state - and my home - comes from dirty coal fired power piants. These plants are directly contributing to climate change, and our coastal towns are indeed on the front lines. Some lawmakers - whose campaigns have been heavily funded by this industry - ciaim that taking this responsibie action might cost jobs. On the contrary, in vrginia, ciean energy jobs are increasing at a rate of more than 8 percent a year. (1) The old jobs are already falling off because coal deposits - in very steep, erosion prone slopes - have been nearly fully exploited. Still much more needs to be done to encourage this sector in Virginia. Only 4 percent of electricity is expected to come from clean renewable sources - including solar and wind - this year. It's goal by 2025 is a mere 15 percent. That pace simply isn't fast enough. Right now, we have no utility-scaie wind or solar projects and very few customer-owned projects. This and other EPA proposals are ultimately about taking modest steps to limit carbon emissions from the dirtiest coal plants in our nation and ensure new ones meet a higher threshold. The technoiogies to meet the new standards are readily avaiiable. Companies are already taking advantage of this — this action mereiy ensures that this progress continues. In Alexandria, I don't know a single person who didn't rejoice when a large coal-buming piant - a plant that sent dangerous amounts of inercury into the air in addition to heat trapping CO2 - was finally retired. But it hasn't been enough. The federal government MUST urgently intervene in part because states like mine simply have not done nearly enough to bring CO2 emissions down on their own. We already limit arsenic, lead, soot and other pollution from power plants. The authority to limit dangerous carbon emissions has been upheld by the Supreme Court. It's now time for action. For ourselves, for the health of the planet and for the next generation. Thank you.

1) National Resources Defense Council
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-7779

BENJAMIN ROSS DOWNEY,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CA-02-324-3)

Submitted: January 30, 2003 Decided: February 5, 2003

Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin Ross Downey, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Benjamin Ross Downey appeals from the district court’s order

adopting the report and recommendation of a magistrate judge and

dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint as abusive and

malicious under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (2000). In a previous § 1983

action, Downey raised identical claims against the same defendant.

Downey v. Angelone, No. CA-97-239 (E.D. Va. June 16, 1998). We

have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find

no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. Downey v. Angelone, No. CA-02-324-3 (E.D.

Va. Oct. 28, 2002). 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.

AFFIRMED
#### John David HIKE v. The MANSFIELD TIRE & RUBBER CO. et al.

No. 39032.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 1969.

Certiorari denied without opinion.
U.S.Cepcrtment

ofTrafispc0otlon

Fedeml Mighway Admlnlstmtion

AUF 301995

400 Seventh St,. s.w

WashIngton. D c 20590

Refer to: HNG-14

Mr. C. Richard, Briden

Engineering Manager

P&K Pole Products

84 Foundry Street

Newark, New Jersey 07105

Dear Mr. Briden:

Thank you for your April 25 letter requesting Federal Highway

Administration's (FHWA) acceptance of your company's aluminum

breakaway bases. Your letter was accompanied by seven test

reports by the Southwest Research Institute dated February or

March 1995, and video documentation on each test. Additional

information was submitted on June 12 and August 8 in response to

our requests.

Pendulum testing was conducted to assess the breakaway

performance of the bases. Requirements for breakaway supports

are found in the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Structural

Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaires and Traffic Signals.

Testing guidelines are found in the National Cooperative Highway

Research Program Report 350, "Recommended Procedures for the

Safety Performance Evaluation of Highway Features." Both have

been adopted by the FHWA.

You requested individual acceptance letters for each base. This

letter is for the hardware tested in PX-109, dated March 1995.

A summary of the test data is shown below, and drawings of the

cast aluminum shoe base are enclosed.
2

The results of this test and the high-speed extrapolation meet

the change in velocity and stub height requirements adopted by

AASHTO and the FHWA. Therefore, the tested aluminum breakaway

base described above is acceptable for use on Federal-aid highway

projects, within the range of conditions tested, if proposed by a

State.

Our acceptance is limited to the breakaway characteristics of the

system and does not cover its structural features. Presumably,

you will supply potential users with sufficient information on

structural design and installation requirements to ensure proper

 performance. We anticipate that the States will require

certification from P&K Pole Products that the hardware furnished

has essentially the same chemistry, mechanical properties, and

geometry as those used in the tests, and that they will meet the

FBWA change in velocity requirements.

Sincerely Yours,

uFede;al-Aid and Design Division

Enclosure

Federal Highway Administration

HNG-14:NArtimovich:61331:gm:8-23-95:BRIDEN5

copies to:

HPD-1 HNG-1 HNG-10 HNG-14

Reader, 3128 File, 3128

RAs HFL-1 HHS-10 HNG-20 HSR-20

Geometric and Roadside Design Acceptance Letter LS-43
#### Bessie C. DURLAND, Executrix of the Estate of O. C. Durland, J. Welch Harriss, and Mrs. J. W. Harriss, Appellants, v. John D. BIGGS, Receiver of Commercial National Bank of High Point, North Carolina, Appellee.

No. 4060.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Oct. 19, 1936.

Frazier & Frazier and Brooks, Mc-Lendon & Holdemess, all of Greensboro, N. C, and Roberson, Haworth & Reese, of High Point, N. G, for appellants.

R. M. Robinson and' Shuping & Hampton, all of Greensboro, N. G, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed at the cost of the appellants on stipulation of attorneys.
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 IA Global, Inc. (the
"company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Alan
Margerison, Chief Executive Officer of the company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 result of operations of the
company for the dates and periods covered by the Report.

This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by the
Chief Executive Officer of the company (or equivalent) with the requirements of
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be used by any person
or for any reason other than as specifically required by law.


                                       /s/ Alan Margerison
                                       -------------------
                                       Alan Margerison
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       August 10, 2004
#### John KENLON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SERVEL, Inc., Defendant-Appellee.

No. 217.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Feb. 1, 1937.

Smith, Chambers & Clare, of New York City (Frank W. Chambers and Wilberforce Sully, Jr., both of New York City, of counsel), for appellant.

Chadbourne, Hunt, Jaeckel & Brown, of New York City (Caruthers Ewing, of 'New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, SWAN, and CHASE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

                     STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER OF
                              BGF INDUSTRIES, INC.

       In connection with the Quarterly Report of BGF Industries, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, James
R. Henderson, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. (S) 1350,
as adopted pursuant to (S) 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.

/s/ James R. Henderson
-----------------------
James R. Henderson
President
August 19, 2002
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 99-6516

RON DEMETURIS CAMPBELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WILLIAM STAFFORD, Major; RANDALL RAY, Captain;

RAYMOND EVANS, Lieutenant; GEORGE COLE, Lieutenant; RICHIE MOFFAT, Officer; JEFF AUSTIN,

Officer; BRUCE CRAIG, Officer; MELODY NORTON,

R.N.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Asheville. Graham C. Mullen, Chief

District Judge. (CA-99-511-2-MU)

Submitted: September 30, 1999 Decided: October 6, 1999

Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Ron Demeturis Campbell, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
* In his informal brief to this court, Campbell suggests that

he was a pretrial detainee at the time of the challenged incident,

a fact that was not stated in his complaint. However, even if he

was a pretrial detainee, the district court properly denied relief.

See Taylor v. McDuffie, 155 F.3d 479, 483 (4th Cir. 1998) (excessive force), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 67 U.S.L.W. 3541 (U.S.

Mar. 1, 1999) (No. 98-7454); Hill v. Nicodemus, 979 F.2d 987, 991

(4th Cir. 1992) (medical care).

2

PER CURIAM:

Ron Campbell appeals the district court’s order denying relief

on his complaint, filed under 42 U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West Supp. 1999).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. See Campbell v. Stafford, No. CA-99-511-2-

MU (W.D.N.C. Mar. 30, 1999).* 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.

AFFIRMED
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 12-12941

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D.C. Docket No. 9:11-cr-80130-DTKH-12

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAMES BUTEAU, 

a.k.a. Slaya,

Defendant-Appellant. 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

________________________

(January 24, 2013)

Before DUBINA, Chief Judge, MARTIN and KRAVITCH, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

Case: 12-12941 Date Filed: 01/24/2013 Page: 1 of 2 
2

Michael Smith, appointed counsel for Appellant James Buteau in this direct 

criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of Buteau 

and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 87 S. Ct. 1396, 18 

L. Ed. 2d 493 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that 

counsel’s assessment of the relative merits of the appeal is correct. Because 

independent examination of the entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, 

counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED, and Buteau’s conviction and 

sentence are AFFIRMED.

Case: 12-12941 Date Filed: 01/24/2013 Page: 2 of 2
PUBLIC LAW 104–70—DEC. 23, 1995 109 STAT. 773

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 325:

HOUSE REPORTS: No. 104–387 (Comm. on Commerce).

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 141 (1995):

Dec. 12, considered and passed House.

Dec. 13, considered and passed Senate.

Æ

Public Law 104–70

104th Congress

An Act

To amend the Clean Air Act to provide for an optional provision for the reduction

of work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled in ozone nonattainment areas

designated as severe, 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. OPTIONAL EMPLOYER MANDATED TRIP REDUCTION.

Section 182(d)(1)(B) of the Clean Air Act is amended to read

as follows:

‘‘(B) The State may also, in its discretion, submit a revision

at any time requiring employers in such area to implement

programs to reduce work-related vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees. Such revision shall be developed in accordance with guidance issued by the Administrator pursuant to

section 108(f) and may require that employers in such area

increase average passenger occupancy per vehicle in commuting

trips between home and the workplace during peak travel periods. The guidance of the Administrator may specify average

vehicle occupancy rates which vary for locations within a nonattainment area (suburban, center city, business district) or

among nonattainment areas reflecting existing occupancy rates

and the availability of high occupancy modes. Any State

required to submit a revision under this subparagraph (as

in effect before the date of enactment of this sentence) containing provisions requiring employers to reduce work-related

vehicle trips and miles travelled by employees may, in accordance with State law, remove such provisions from the

implementation plan, or withdraw its submission, if the State

notifies the Administrator, in writing, that the State has undertaken, or will undertake, one or more alternative methods

that will achieve emission reductions equivalent to those to

be achieved by the removed or withdrawn provisions.’’.

Approved December 23, 1995.

Guidelines.

42 USC 7511a.

Dec. 23, 1995

[H.R. 325]
#### Donald Ray RUFFNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-688.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Aug. 5, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 18, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 21

- 00100

- CR

E X PARTE D IMONIQUE D WAYNE

M C K INNEY §

§

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 78t h District Court

of Wichita County ( DC78

- CR2020

- 1047 )

October 21, 2021

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s order

. It is ordered that the order of the trial court is

affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

__________________ Justice Mike Wallach
#### INTERNATIONAL CITY BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. The ROUND TABLE OF LOUISIANA, INC. (Brooks Read and Associates, Inc.)

No. 62076.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 12, 1978.

In re: Brooks Read and Associates, Inc. applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit. Parish of East Baton Rouge. 356 So.2d 99.

Writ denied.

DIXON, J., concurs in the result because executory process is not involved.
#### Ralph E. LEE, Jr., and Joann Lee, his wife, Appellants, v. FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY, a Florida corporation, and Alfred D. Griffin, etc., et al., Appellees.

No. 70-990.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 3, 1971.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; George Richardson, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.
EMPLOYEE SOLUTIONS, INC.

                                  EXHIBIT 21.1
                                       TO
                               REPORT ON FORM 10-K
                      FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1998


                                                       STATE            DATE
    CORPORATION NAME                                INCORPORATED    INCORPORATED
    ----------------                                ------------    ------------
Camelback Insurance, Ltd.                              Bermuda        8/24/94
E.R.C. of Indiana, Inc.                                Indiana       10/23/87
Employee Resources Corporation                         Indiana        8/25/95
Employee Solutions - Ohio, Inc.                        Indiana       12/28/90
Employee Solutions of Alabama, Inc.                    Alabama         7/1/93
Employee Solutions of California, Inc.                  Nevada         5/3/96
Employee Solutions of Texas, Inc.                        Texas       10/24/91
Employee Solutions-East, Inc.                          Georgia        6/24/94
Employee Solutions-Midwest, Inc.                      Michigan         5/8/91
Employee Solutions-North America, Inc.                Delaware       12/17/91
Employee Solutions-Southeast, Inc.                     Florida        1/16/85
ERC of Minn, Inc.                                    Minnesota         1/2/97
ERC of Ohio, Inc.                                     Michigan         5/8/91
ESI - Nevada Holding Co.                                Nevada        7/10/98
ESI America, Inc.                                       Nevada        10/2/95
ESI Risk Management Agency, Inc.                       Arizona        10/2/95
ESI-Midwest, Inc.                                       Nevada        5/14/96
ESI-New York, Inc.                                     Arizona        12/9/97
Fidelity Resources Corporation                        Oklahoma        12/1/98
Logistics Personnel Corp.                               Nevada         9/8/95
Phoenix Capital Management, Inc.                       Indiana       12/23/90
Talent, Entertainment And Media Services, Inc.        Delaware        1/10/96
TEAM Benefits Corp.                                   Delaware        3/12/98
TEAM Tours, Inc.                                       Arizona       12/30/98