alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 23 (Tuesday, February 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 5213-5214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2671]


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


DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory Committee; Closed Meeting

AGENCY: International Trade Administration, Commerce.

ACTION: Closed meeting of U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory Committee.

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

SUMMARY: The U.S. Automotive Parts Advisory Committee (the 
``Committee'') advises U.S. Government officials on matters relating to 
the implementation of the Fair Trade in Auto Parts Act of 1988. The 
Committee: (1) reports annually to the Secretary of Commerce on 
barriers to sales of U.S.-made auto parts and accessories in Japanese 
markets; (2) assists the Secretary in reporting to the Congress on the 
progress of sales of U.S.-made auto parts in Japanese markets, 
including the formation of long-term supplier relationships; (3) 
reviews and considers data collected on sales of U.S.-made auto parts 
to Japanese markets; (4) advises the Secretary during consultations 
with the Government of Japan on these issues; and (5) assists in 
establishing priorities for the

[[Page 5214]]

Department's initiatives to increase U.S.-made auto parts sales to 
Japanese markets, and otherwise provide assistance and direction to the 
Secretary in carrying out these initiatives. At the meeting, committee 
members will discuss the current status of U.S-Japan automotive trade 
and APAC's future activities.

DATE AND LOCATION: The meeting will be held on February 18, 1996 from 
10:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at the U.S. Department of Commerce in 
Washington, D.C.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Robert Reck, Office of Automotive 
Affairs, Trade Development, Room 4036, Washington, D.C. 20230, 
telephone: (202) 482-1418.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Assistant Secretary for Administration, 
with the concurrence of the General Counsel formally determined on July 
10, 1996, pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Act, as 
amended, that the series of meetings or portions of meetings of the 
Committee and of any subcommittee thereof, dealing with privileged or 
confidential commercial information may be exempt from the provisions 
of the Act relating to open meeting and public participation therein 
because these items are concerned with matters that are within the 
purview of 5 U.S.C. 552b(c)(4) and (9)(B). A copy of the Notice of 
Determination is available for public inspection and copying in the 
Department of Commerce Records Inspection Facility, Room 6020, Main 
Commerce.

    Dated: January 27, 1997.
John White,
Acting Director, Office of Automotive Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-2671 Filed 2-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> BD
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997             DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                              136,997,826              90,148,909
<SECURITIES-RESALE>                                  0                       0
<SECURITIES-BORROWED>                                0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-OWNED>                                  0                       0
<PP&E>                                               0                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             136,997,826              90,148,909
<SHORT-TERM>                                         0                       0
<PAYABLES>                                   2,953,461               5,975,368
<REPOS-SOLD>                                         0                       0
<SECURITIES-LOANED>                                  0                       0
<INSTRUMENTS-SOLD>                                   0                       0
<LONG-TERM>                                          0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                       0
<COMMON>                                             0                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 134,044,365              84,173,541
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               136,997,826              90,148,909
<TRADING-REVENUE>                           12,440,782              17,163,337
<INTEREST-DIVIDENDS>                         5,278,840               3,978,137
<COMMISSIONS>                                7,727,226               6,646,004
<INVESTMENT-BANKING-REVENUES>                        0                       0
<FEE-REVENUE>                                        0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0                       0
<COMPENSATION>                                       0                       0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              7,770,162              11,796,088
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   7,770,162              11,796,088
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 7,770,162              11,796,088
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    10.98                   16.96
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    10.98                   16.96
        

</TABLE>
#### OPINION OF THE JUSTICES.

No. 241.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 21, 1978.

To the Members of the House of Representatives

State Capitol

Montgomery, AL 36130

Dear Sirs and Mesdames:

We acknowledge receipt on late yesterday of House Resolution No. 406, adopted February 16, 1978, requesting our written opinions as to the meaning of that part of Section 11 of Act No. 512 of the 1976 Regular Session of the Legislature, page 640, vol. 1, Acts of Alabama, Regular Session 1976 (the “Sunset” Act), which reads in pertinent part as follows:

> “. . . voting in the respective houses of the legislature on the joint committees’ recommendations shall commence and thereafter continue from day to day until voting on all the recommendations with respect to each agency are completed, as the first order of business.”

You have asked us the following question, viz.:

> “Does this language permit either house, after it has voted on all such recommendations before it, to resume normal legislative activities, including consideration of unfinished business or bills on its regular or special order calendar, even though the other house may not have completed consideration of the said recommendations?”

You asked for our prompt reply to this urgent question because you state that “the *618validity of any further action taken, or bills passed, by this House hinges upon your reply.” We answer with alacrity because of your expressed concern.

Section 12-2-10, Code 1975, provides as follows:

> “The governor, by a request in writing, or either house of the legislature, by a resolution of such house, may obtain a written opinion of the justices of the supreme court of Alabama or a majority thereof on *important constitutional questions.”*[Emphasis supplied.]

We must respectfully point out that the question you pose is a legal question, not an important constitutional question, the latter being the only questions we are permitted to answer. *Opinion of the Justices,*336 So.2d 164 (Ala.1976); *Opinion of the Justices,*336 So.2d 175 (Ala.1976).

It is, therefore, that we must respectfully decline to render our written opinions in this instance.

Respectfully submitted,

C. C. TORBERT, Chief Justice

JAMES N. BLOODWORTH

HUGH MADDOX

JAMES H. FAULKNER

RENEAU P. ALMON

JANIE L. SHORES

ERIC EMBRY

SAMUEL A. BEATTY

Justices.
**Exhibit
      32.2**






**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 Quarterly Report of Audible Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q
      for the period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission (the “Report”), I, William H. Mitchell, Chief Financial Officer of
      the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
      and belief:







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 of the Company at the end of the
                reporting period covered by the Report and the results of operations
                of
                the Company for the period covered by the
                Report.




By:
            /s/
                William H. MitchellName:
            William H. MitchellTitle:
            Chief Financial Officer
              (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)Date:
            May
                9, 2007





The
      foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of
      the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not being filed as part of this Report or
      as a
      separate disclosure document. A signed original of this written statement
      required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained
      by
      the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff
      upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 198 (Tuesday, October 14, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 53223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27109]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 900

RIN 3206-AH90


Intergovernmental Personnel Act Programs; Standards for a Merit 
System of Personnel Administration

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management, in publishing regulations 
at Sec. 900.604, (62 FR 33971, June 24, 1997) added a paragraph to the 
regulation but referenced the addition as a revision. This document 
corrects that error.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary L. Smith, 202-606-2980, EMAIL 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0e69627d63677a664e617e6320696178"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9cfbf0eff1f5e8f4dcf3ecf1b2fbf3ea">[email protected]</span></a>, or FAX 202-606-2663.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Accordingly, the final rule published on 
June 24, 1997, on page 33971, third column, sentence following 
reference to Authority is corrected to read as follows:

    2. In Subpart F Sec. 900.604 paragraph (b)(3) is revised and 
paragraph (b)(4) is added to read as follows:
Jacquline D. Carter,
Federal Regulations Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-27109 Filed 10-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
HomeNRC LibraryDocument CollectionsNUREG-Series PublicationsPublications Prepared by NRC Staff

# Report to Congress on the Security Inspection Program for Commercial Power Reactor and Category I Fuel Cycle Facilities: Results and Status Update (NUREG-1885)

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Tuesday, September 17, 2024
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 197 (Friday, October 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52981]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26948]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-139-007]


Caprock Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 6, 1997.
    Take notice that on October 1, 1997, Caprock Pipeline Company 
(Caprock) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1, Third Revised Sheet No. 29A, to be effective 
November 1, 1997.
    Caprock states that this tariff sheet is being filed to comply with 
the OPR's Letter Orders issued June 6, July 2, and July 29, 1997, 
requiring the filing of actual tariff sheets, the correction of 
pagination errors, the inclusion of GISB Standard 4.3.6 pertaining to 
the publication of information on the Internet and the adoption of the 
GISB Model Trading Partner Agreement.
    Caprock states that copies of the filing were served upon Caprock's 
jurisdictional customers, interested public bodies, and all parties to 
the proceedings.
    Any person desiring to protest with reference to this 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 Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such 
protests must be filed as provided in Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All protests filed with the Commission will 
be considered by it in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26948 Filed 10-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Helen Louise ROBINSON v. Leonard ROBINSON and Margie Robinson.

No. 49927.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 1, 1978.

David E. Holderfield, Glen W. Hall, Jackson, for appellant.

Wright & Phillips, A. R. Wright, Jr., Carthage, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Leake County; E. G. Cortright, Chancellor.

Before SMITH, P. J., ROBERTSON and LEE, JJ., and JAMES E. BOST, Commissioner.

AFFIRMED.
#### Harold TUCKER v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 50316.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Sept. 7, 1977.

Louis Fondren, Pascagoula, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Jackson County; Merle F. Palmer, Judge.

Before PATTERSON, C. J., and SUGG and WALKER, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7945

ROY LEE OWENS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

WAYNE W. KOWALSKI, Special Agent DEA; NEAL

GODFREY, Special Agent SBI; TIM MONROE,

Detective Sergeant, Moore County Sheriff

Department; SHERIFF OF GUILFOD COUNTY; RUSSELL

ELIASON, Magistrate Judge; RICHARD S. GLASER,

JR., Assistant United States Attorney; JAMES

CRAVEN, III; RICHARD C. ERWIN, Judge; EPHRAIM

VANDORIAN STANCIL, Government Witness; ANDREW

NEWMAN RICHMOND, JR., Government Witness; W.R.

MYERS, Special Agent SBI,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr.,

District Judge. (CA-95-602-2)

Submitted: March 21, 1996 Decided: April 12, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Lee Owens, Appellant Pro Se.
2

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
3

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying

relief on his Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of

Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), complaint. We have reviewed the

record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate

judge's recommendation and find no reversible error. Accordingly,

we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Owens v.

Kowalski, No. CA-95-602-2 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 28, 1995). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and 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
Exhibit 32.2
                    CERTIFICATION OF CFO 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 Annual Report of Nutritional Sourcing
 Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
 November 1, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
 the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Daniel J. O'Leary, 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; and

      (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
 material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
 Company.


 Dated:  January 28, 2004


                                                /s/ Daniel J. O'Leary
                                                ---------------------------
                                                Daniel J. O'Leary
                                                Chief Financial Officer


 The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to Section
 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) and is not being filed
 as part of the Form 10-K or as a separate disclosure document.

















<PAGE> 2
- 2 -
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM NATIONAL
GOLF PROPERTIES INC., AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           1,711
<SECURITIES>                                     1,295
<RECEIVABLES>                                   25,807
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 3,964
<PP&E>                                         663,018
<DEPRECIATION>                                 121,095
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 597,295
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,011
<BONDS>                                        283,405
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           125
<OTHER-SE>                                     132,099
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   597,295
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                83,735
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                32,235
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              20,350
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 34,165
<INCOME-TAX>                                       231
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             33,934
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    16,642
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.33
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.32
        

</TABLE>
#### Early J. MECHE v. TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY et al.

No. 7654.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

April 14, 1969.

Rehearing Denied May 26, 1969.

Watson, Blanche, Wilson, Posner & Thibaut, Baton Rouge, for appellant.

Taylor, Porter, Brooks, Fuller & Phillips, Baton Rouge, for appellee.

*340Before LOTTINGER, ELLIS and BAILES, JJ.

ELLIS, Judge:

This appeal is from a judgment sustaining a motion for summary judgment filed herein by Travelers Insurance Company. The record reveals that plaintiff’s daughter was injured while riding as a guest passenger on a motorcycle, which was rented from Sid’s Bike Rental, Inc. Sid’s Bike Rental, Inc. had its place of business on the premises of Sid’s Super Service, Inc., an automobile service station. Travelers Insurance Company was the garage liability insurer of Sid’s Super Service Center, Inc.

The grounds alleged for the motion for summary judgment are the cancellation of the policy and,' alternatively, non-coverage under its terms. Since we are of the opinion that the policy would afford no coverage in this case, it is not necessary that we consider the cancellation point.

The policy insures against liability arising out of “ownership, maintenance or use of the premises for the purposes of a garage, and all operations necessary or incidental thereto * * * ” Under the definitions section of the policy, the word premises “does not include any portion of such premises upon which business operations are conducted by any other person or organization”.

The motorbikes were owned and rented out by Sid’s Bike Rental, Inc., which kept the bikes in a separate building on the premises. Sid’s Super Service received a percentage of the bike rental fees as rent. On Sundays, Mr. Ernest, who operated Sid’s Bike Rental, used an office in- the service station to take care of the rental business. Mr. Ernest testified that there were no employees *<*common to the two corporations, and that he was not connected with the s.ervice station operation except as a stockholder.

It is the plaintiff’s position that, since Mr. Ernest was connected with both corporations, and since the service station received a portion of the bike rentals as rent, the bike business was a use of the premises incidental to the garage operation, and that there is coverage under the policy.

We are of the opinion that since a separate legal entity, Sid’s Bike Rental, Inc., owned and operated the bike rental business, there can be no liability for damages arising out of the use of the premises for that purpose, since the definition of premises quoted above excludes it from coverage.

The legal relationship between Sid’s Bike Rental, Inc., and Sid’s Super Service Center, Inc. is that of lessee and lessor, and this relationship could not render the service station or its insurer liable for the negligence of the bike rental company in the conduct of its business.

The judgment appealed from is affirmed, at plaintiff’s cost.

Affirmed.