alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Presidential Documents

54569

Federal Register

Vol. 62, No. 203

Tuesday, October 21, 1997

Title 3—

The President

Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 203 / Tuesday, October 21, 1997 / Presidential Documents

Presidential Determination No. 98–2

Presidential Determination on the Proposed Agreement for

Cooperation Between the Government of the United States of

America and the Government of the Federative Republic of

Brazil Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy

Memorandum for the Secretary of State [and] the Secretary of Energy

I have considered the proposed Agreement for Cooperation Between the

Government of the United States of America and the Government of the

Federative Republic of Brazil Concerning Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy,

along with the views, recommendations, and statements of the interested

agencies.

I have determined that the performance of the agreement will promote,

and will not constitute an unreasonable risk to, the common defense and

security. Pursuant to section 123 b. of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,

as amended (42 U.S.C. 2153(b)), I hereby approve the proposed agreement

and authorize you to arrange for its execution.

The Secretary of State is authorized and directed to publish this determination in the Federal Register

œ–.

THE WHITE HOUSE,

Washington, October 9, 1997. [FR Doc. 97–28026

Filed 10–20–97; 8:45 am]

Billing code 4710–10–M
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Marilyn Kelly

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices

Order 

 

November 14, 2006 

132457 (19) 

ARTHUR PORTER, #339222 

 Plaintiff-Appellant, 

v SC: 132457 

 CoA: 271239 

DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 

 Defendant-Appellee. 

___________________________________ 

 On order of the Chief Justice, the motion to waive fees is considered and it 

is DENIED because MCL 600.2963; MSA 27A.2963 requires that a prisoner pursuing a 

civil action be liable for filing fees. 

 Within 21 days of the certification of this order, plaintiff shall pay to the 

Clerk of the Court the initial partial filing fee of $69.00, shall submit a copy of this order 

with the payment, and shall refile the copy of the pleadings which is being returned 

with this order. Failure to comply with this order shall result in the appeal not being 

filed in this Court. 

 If plaintiff timely files the partial fee and refiles the pleadings, monthly 

payments shall be made to the Department of Corrections in an amount of 50 percent of 

the deposits made to plaintiff’s account until the payments equal the balance due of 

$306.00. This amount shall then be remitted to this Court. 

 Pursuant to MCL 600.2963(8) plaintiff shall not file further appeals in this 

Court until the entry fee in this case is paid in full. 

 The Clerk of the Court shall furnish two copies of this order to plaintiff and 

return plaintiff’s pleadings with this order. 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

November 14, 2006 

jm
37%

for non-intersection, fatal 

and injury crashes on rural, 

two-lane roads.2

FHWA-SA-21-055

Wider Edge Lines 

Roadway departures account for over half of all traffic fatalities in the United 

States. If drivers cannot clearly identify the edge of the travel lanes and see 

the road alignment ahead, the risk of roadway departure may be greater. 

Wider edge lines enhance the visibility of travel lane boundaries compared 

to traditional edge lines. Edge lines are considered “wider” when the marking 

width is increased from the minimum normal line width of 4 inches to the 

maximum normal line width of 6 inches.1

Applications

Wider edge lines increase drivers’ 

perception of the edge of the 

travel lane and can provide a 

safety benefit to all facility types 

(e.g., freeways, multilane divided 

and undivided highways, two-lane 

highways) in both urban and rural 

areas.2

 Wider edge lines are most 

effective in reducing crashes on 

rural two-lane highways, especially 

for single-vehicle crashes.3 Agencies 

should also consider implementing 

a systemic approach to wider edge 

line installation based roadway 

departure crash risk factors. Potential 

risk factors for two-lane rural roads 

include:

• Pavement and shoulder widths.

• Presence of curves.

• Traffic volumes.

• History of nighttime crashes.

Considerations

• Wider edge lines are relatively

low cost.

• Wider edge lines can be

implemented using existing

equipment during maintenance

procedures like re-striping and

resurfacing, with the only cost

increase being the additional

material.

• Paint may have a lower initial cost,

but more durable materials (e.g.,

thermoplastic) may result in a

lower life cycle cost based on their

longer service life.

• As the number of automated

vehicles increases on roadways,

wider edge lines may provide

better guidance for these

vehicles’ sensors.

Source: Texas Transportation Institute

22%

for fatal and injury crashes 

on rural freeways.3

 1 Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), Section 3A.04. FHWA, (2023).

2 (CMF ID: 4737) Park et al. “Safety effects of wider edge lines on rural, two-lane highways. 

” Accident Analysis and Prevention Vol. 48, pp.317-325, (2012). 

3 Potts et al. Benefit/Cost Evaluation of MoDOT’s Total Striping and Delineation 

Program: Phase II. Missouri Department of Transportation, (2011).

4 Abdel-Rahim et al. Safety Impacts of Using Wider Pavement Markings 

on Two-Lane Rural Highways in Idaho. Idaho Transportation Department, (2018).

25:1

Benefit Cost Ratio

for fatal and serious injury 

crashes on two-lane rural 

roads.4

For more information on this 

and other FHWA Proven Safety 

Countermeasures, please visit 

https://highways.dot.gov/

safety/proven-safety-counter

measures and https://high 

ways.dot.gov/safety/other/

visibility/pavement-markings.

Wider edge lines can 

reduce crashes up to:

Safety Benefits:

OFFICE OF SAFETY

Proven Safety 

Countermeasures
Exhibit 23

 

 

 

Consent of Independent Auditors

 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference into previously filed registration statements on Form S-3 dated August 18, 1994 as amended effective November 13, 1998 (Registration No. 33-60105), Form S-3 dated May 4, 1995 (Registration No. 333-91880) and Form S-3 dated June 27, 1997 (Registration No. 333-26967) of Crown American Realty Trust of our report dated March 28, 2003, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedules of Crown American Realty Trust included in this Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

 

							ERNST & YOUNG LLP

 

 

 

 

 

McLean, Virginia

March 28, 2003
EXHIBIT 12.2: CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
CERTIFICATIONS
I, Kevin Connelly, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The company’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) forthe company and have:
a. Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made knownto us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this reportis being prepared;
b. Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
c. Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internalcontrol over financial reporting; and
5. The company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluationof internal control over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee ofthe company’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):
a. All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affectthe company’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
b. Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the company’s internal control over financial reporting.     Date: June 29, 2005 By:  /s/ Kevin Connelly    Kevin Connelly    Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
MAR12 201fl

Mr. Shawn M. GarvinRegional Administrator (3RAOO)U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyRegion Ill

1650 Arch Street

Philadelphia PA 19103-2023Dear Mr. Garvin:

Pursuant to section 181 (a)(5) of the Clean Air Act this is a request for a 1-year attainment date

extension to June 15, 2011 for the Baltimore nonattainment area which is classified as moderate

for the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS or standard). By this

letter, I am certifying that:

1) The State of Maryland has complied with all requirements and commitments pertaining

to the area in the applicable ozone implementation plan; and

2) The Baltimore nonattainment area’s 4th highest daily 8-hour monitored value during the

2009 ozone season is 0.084 ppm or less. Attached is the letter certifying that our ozone

air quality data in the Air Quality System is complete, quality-assured ambient air quality

monitoring data for the 2009 attainment year ozone season.

Maryland would appreciate your taking action on this request as soon as possible. If you wouldlike to discuss this further please call me at 410-537-3084.

SecretaryMaryland Department of Environment

Attachment

www.mde.state.md.us

Sincerely,

Recycled Paper TTY Users 1-800-735-2258

Via Maryland Relay Service
Docket Number FAA-2014-0129
Office of 

Administration

Office of 

Operations

Office of the 

ChiefFinancial 

Officer

Office ofSafety

Office of 

FederalLands 

Highway

Office of 

ChiefCounsel

Office of 

Civil Rights Office of 

PublicAffairs

AssistantSecretary 

for Research and 

Technology

Office of

Policy and 

Governmental 

Affairs

Office of 

Infrastructure

Office of 

Planning, 

Environment,and 

Realty

Office of 

Research, 

Development,and 

Technology

Office of the 

Administrator*

Office of 

Infrastructure 

Researchand 

Development

Office of Corporate 

Research, Technology,

and Innovation

Management

Office of Safety 

and Operations 

Researchand 

Development

Office of 

Resource 

Management

Office of 

Stewardship, 

Oversight,and 

Management

Office of 

Preconstruction, 

Construction,and 

Pavements

Office of 

Bridgesand 

Structures

Office of 

Planning

Office of 

Natural 

Environment

Office of 

Human 

Environment

Office of Project 

Developmentand 

Environmental 

Review

Office of Real

Estate 

Services

Office of Legislative

Affairs and Policy 

Communications

Office of Highway

Policy Information

Office of 

Transportation 

Policy Studies

Office of 

International 

Programs

Office of 

Budget and 

Finance

Office o f Acquisition 

and Grants 

Management

Office of Human

Resources

Office of 

Information 

Technology and

Data Services

Office of 

Management 

Services

Officeof 

Freight

Management

and Operations

Office of 

Transportation 

Operations

Office of 

Transportation 

Management

Office of

SafetyPrograms

Office of Safety 

Technologies

Office ofFinancial 

Integrity & 

Management 

Systems

Federal Lands 

HighwayDivision 

Offices(Field)

Office ofFederal 

LandsPrograms

Federal-aid 

Divisions

Offices*

* The Office of the Administrator includes the Administrator, Deputy Administrator, and the Executive Director. The Directors of Field Services (DFS) and the Executive Secretariat are extensions of the Executive 

Director's office. The DFSs provide administrative supervision and leadership on strategic initiatives to their constituent Federal-aid division offices.

** The Intelligent Transportation Systems/Joint Program Office (ITS/JPO), which has a departmentwide role and authority for coordinating ITS program activities and initiatives, is organizationally located within FHWA. The 

Assistant Secretary for Research and Technology has primary responsibility for the strategic oversight and direction of the ITS/JPO, including but not limited to, providing policy guidance for ITS programs and activities and 

coordinating ITS research within the Department. The FHWA Administrator is responsible for ensuring the continuing availability of professional, technical, and administrative services to support the ITS/JPO.

ITS Joint 

Program Office**

Directors ofField 

Services*

Office ofMedia 

Relations

Office of Public 

Communications

Office ofTribal 

Transportation

Office of 

Innovation and 

Workforce 

Solutions

Office ofInnovation 

and Workforce 

Programs

Office ofInnovation 

ImplementationResourceCenter
2023 Montana FLAP Call for Projects

PDC approved proposal selections

Proposal # Project Name Lead agency FLAP approved 

MT-FY23-29 Goose Bay Lane WFLHD $3,963,000

MT-FY23-19 Rainbow Point WFLHD $6,610,000

MT-FY23-04 Lake Koocanusa Scenic Byway MDT $2,500,000

MT-FY23-07 Hell Creek Road WFLHD $8,721,000

MT-FY23-17 Pioneer Scenic Byway Beaverhead County $6,000,000

MT-FY23-08 Fort Peck Northwest MDT $2,500,000

MT-FY23-09 Milwaukee Bridge Construction WFLHD $9,158,000

MT-FY23-20 Cataract Road WFLHD $2,811,000

Total amount programmed from 2023 Montana FLAP Call for Projects $42,263,000
FILED

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

APRIL 20, 2011

JOHN LEY

CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

 ________________________

 No. 10-11991 

 ________________________

 D.C. Docket No. 3:09-cv-00036-DHB-WLB

Bkcy No. 03-30161-BKC-SDB

IN RE: 

KENNETH RUFORD ALLAN, 

lllllllllllllllllllllDebtor.

__________________________________________________________________

ROBERT SHUMAN, Dr.,

ALLAN & HARPER CUSTOM HOMES, LLC,

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiffs - Appellants,

versus

KENNETH RUFORD ALLAN,

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee.

________________________

 Appeal from the United States District Court

 for the Southern District of Georgia

 ________________________

(April 20, 2011)
Before WILSON and PRYOR, Circuit Judges, and BUCKLEW, District Judge. *

PER CURIAM:

 This case involves a dispute between a Chapter 13 bankruptcy debtor and

his creditors about the failure to disclose certain assets and transactions, postconfirmation. During the pendency of his bankruptcy, Kenneth Ruford Allan

engaged in various financial transactions and became the beneficiary of an

irrevocable spendthrift trust, which he failed to disclose to the bankruptcy court. 

Two of Allan’s unsecured creditors present two issues on appeal, namely (1)

whether the bankruptcy court erred in denying the creditors’ motion to modify

Allan’s bankruptcy plan, and (2) whether the bankruptcy court abused its

discretion in denying the creditors’ motion to dismiss on the grounds that Allan

did not act in bad faith in failing to disclose the post-confirmation transactions and

Trust. 

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude that the

bankruptcy court did not err in denying the creditors’ motion to modify Allan’s

bankruptcy plan and did not abuse its discretion in denying the creditors’ motion

to dismiss Allan’s bankruptcy petition. Accordingly, we affirm.

Honorable Susan C. Bucklew, United States District Judge for the Middle District of *

Florida, sitting by designation.

2
AFFIRMED.

3
11/19/201 0 16:0 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A^ DM S @|001/00 2

I n th e matter

of ; WESTERN AVIATORS, INC .

U.S . DEPARTMEN T O FTRANSPORTATIO N FEDERA LAVIATIO N ADMINISTRATIO N ^ ' Et^^RTMEN TO F 

### nAMSPORWiO N 

## 2P/ 0 - 

## ^3/ / F A ADocke t

No . CP10NM00 3 Judg e Richar dC . Goodwi n Hearin g Location : Denver , Colorad o

COMPLAINANT' S MOTIO NT O WITHDRA WCOMPLAIN T Pursuan t t o 1 4 C-F.R . § 13.21 5 o f

th e Rule s o f

Practic e i n Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Civi l Penalty Action s th e Complainant , th e Federal Aviatio n Administration , hereb y files thi s motio n t o withdra w th e complain t i n thi s matte r

becaus e asettlemen t

wa s reache db y th e FA A andWester n Aviator s on Novembe r

18 , 2010 . WHEREFORE , th e FA

A respectfull y request s that th e complain t

b e dismisse d an dtha t ihi. s matte r

b e tenninated . Respectfull y submitted ,

Pete r J . Lync h Assistan t Chie f Counse l Enforcement

Division , AGC-30 0 ^>u<»<VvvJ/01^;tyLfrv^ ^ Susan S . Caro n Attorney , AGC-30 0 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Chie f Counse l 80 0 Independenc e Ave. , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Telephone : (202 ) 267-772 1 Facsimile : (202 ) 267-510 6 Date : Novembe r

19 , 201 011/19/201 0 16:0 6 FA X 202493514 2 FA A+ DM S @l002/00 2

CERTIFICAT EO FSERVIC E I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s date 1 sent

b y U.S . mail , postag e prepaid , certifie d return-receip t

requested , acop y o f

th e Complainant' s Motio n t o Withdra w Complain t i n th e cas e of/ n th e Maite r

o f Wester n Aviaiiors , Inc. , FAA Docke t No . CP10NM003 , addresse dto : Mr . RichardL . Fowler , Presiden t

Western Aviators , Inc . 253 3 Lanyo n Driv e Longmont , C O 8050 3 I n addition , I hereb y certif

y tha t o n thi s date 1 personall y delivere dth e original an don e cop y o f

th e foregoin g documen t

to : I'ederal Aviatio n Administratio n 60 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Wilbur Wright Buildin g • Suite 2W100 0 Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attention ; Hearin g Docke t Clerk , AGC-43 0

Nam e 

# lUj>^(i > Dale : AU , /? , It^l n
#### Jimmie L. LEWIS et al., Plaintiffs and Appellees, v. PAN AMERICAN FIRE & CASUALTY COMPANY et al., Defendants and Appellants.

No. 3486.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

July 13, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 16, 1971.

Plauché, Sanders, Smith & Hebert by Allen L. Smith, Jr., Lake Charles, for defendants-appellants.

S. Chris Smith, III, Leesville, Mitchel M. Evans, DeRidder, for plaintiffs-appel-lees.

Before SAVOY, CULPEPPER and MILLER, JJ.

CULPEPPER, Judge.

This is a companion case to Rice, et al. v. Pan American Fire & Casualty Company, et al., La.App., 251 So.2d 60 in which a separate judgment is being rendered by us this date. For the reasons set forth in our decision in the companion case, the judgment appealed herein is reversed and set aside insofar as it finds liability on the part of Sabine Oil Company, Inc., Arthur Hassler and Pan American Fire & Casu*63alty Company. Plaintiffs’ suit against these three defendants is dismissed at plaintiffs’ costs. Otherwise, the judgment is affirmed. All costs of this appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs appellees.

Reversed in part, affirmed in part.
#### Howard DOZIER, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-798.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 21, 1978.

*728Howard Dozier, Jr., in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Paul H. Zacks, Asst. Atty. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

MOORE, Judge.

This is another case which involves comment upon a defendant’s exercise of his Fifth Amendment privilege to remain silent.

The appellant (hereinafter referred to as defendant) was convicted of the charge of breaking and entering a dwelling house. His direct appeal of that conviction resulted in an affirmance and he subsequently filed a Motion to Vacate Judgment and Sentence pursuant to Fla.R.Crim.P. 3.850. The trial court’s denial of said motion without hearing is the subject of this appeal.

Defendant alleges that the following colloquy occurred at his trial when the prosecution was examining a police officer:

> “Q. Did you advise him of his constitutional rights?

> A. Yes, sir. I did.

> Q. Did you ask him whether or not he understood these rights?

> A. Yes, I did.

> Q. Did he indicate to you whether or not he did or did not?

> A. He indicated that he did understand.

> Q. Okay, did you continue the questioning then and ask him some questions?

> A. I asked him where he was and everything and he indicated he did not wish to talk so no further questioning was conducted.”

There is no doubt that such a colloquy under Florida law is impermissible and of such magnitude that it constitutes reversible error for which the doctrine of harmless error is not applicable. *Bennett v. State,*316 So.2d 41 (Fla.1975); *Shannon v. State,*335 So.2d 5 (Fla.1976). The sole question remaining for our determination is whether or not the defendant should have been allowed to collaterally attack this error through a Motion for Post Conviction Relief in the absence of an objection at trial. If not, the trial court was correct in denying his motion without a hearing. If such error may be so attacked, the trial court should have conducted an evidentiary hearing to determine the validity of the alleged facts and enter an appropriate ruling thereon.

Our decision is controlled by our previous opinions in *Bostic v. State,*332 So.2d 349 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Carter v. State,*335 So.2d 875 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Collins v. State,*340 So.2d 516 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976); *Sylvester v. State,*341 So.2d 203 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977); *Royal v. State,*347 So.2d 742 (Fla. 4th DCA 1977). A fundamental error of constitutional dimension may be collaterally attacked.

Accordingly, this cause is reversed and remanded for an evidentiary hearing in accordance with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

DOWNEY and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.