alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 204 (Wednesday, October 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54852]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27891]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Request for Public Comments on Information Collection To Be 
Submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for Review Under the 
Paperwork Reduction Act

    A request revising and extending the collection of information 
listed below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget 
for approval under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35). Copies of the proposed collection of information 
and related forms may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's Clearance 
Officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and suggestions on 
the requirement should be made within 60 days directly to the Bureau 
Clearance Officer, U.S. Geological Survey, 807 National Center, Reston, 
VA 20192.
    As required by OMB regulations at 5 CFR 1320.8(d)(1), the U.S. 
Geologial Survey solicits specific public comments regarding the 
proposed information collection as to:
    1. Whether the collection of information is necessary for the 
proper performance of the functions of the bureau, including whether 
the information will have practical utility;
    2. The accuracy of the bureau's estimate of the burden of the 
collection of information, including the validity of the methodology 
and assumptions used;
    3. The utility, quality, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and,
    4. How to minimize the burden of the collection of information on 
those who are to respond, including the use of appropriate automated 
electronic, mechanical, or other forms of information technology.
    Title: Portland and Masonry Cement.
    OMB approval number: 1028-NEW (Current number 1032-0038).
    Abstract: Respondents supply the U.S. Geological Survey with data 
on cement production, shipments, and capacity, as well as consumption 
of raw materials. This information will be published as an annual 
report for use by Government agencies, industry, and the general 
public.
    Bureau form number: 6-1214-A.
    Frequency: Annual.
    Description of respondents: Commercial producers and importers of 
portland and masonry cement.
    Annual Responses: 130.
    Annual Burden hours: 650.
    Bureau clearance officer: John E. Cordyack, Jr., 703-648-7313.
John H. DeYoung, Jr.,
Chief Scientist, Minerals Information Team.
[FR Doc. 97-27891 Filed 10-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-31-M
Exhibit 31.1



CERTIFICATION



I, Jason Kellerman, certify that:



| | 1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of LookSmart, Ltd.;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------



| | 2. | Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;
| | -- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: November 7, 2003



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/    JASON KELLERMAN 
|                       
|Chief Executive Officer
#### William J. HOLLAND, Patricia A. Holland and H. O. T. and Associates, Ltd., a limited partnership, Petitioners, v. Arthur T. TENENBAUM, Jerome J. Topping, Harold Simon and Arthur T. Tenenbaum, Trustee, Respondents.

No. 78-711.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 12, 1978.

Stan L. Riskin of Riskin and Riskin & Dishowitz, Hollywood, for petitioners.

Jan Stuart Dubin, Fort Lauderdale, and William F. Sullivan, Pompano Beach, for respondents.

DOWNEY, Chief Judge.

By Petition for Certiorari we have for review an order of the trial court removing Stan L. Riskin, Esquire, as attorney for the defendants/counterclaimants in the trial court.

It appears that respondents filed a motion to disqualify Mr. Riskin and remove him as counsel for petitioners on the grounds that he had previously represented both parties to this litigation in matters which should now preclude his representing petitioner because it would violate the attorney client relationship. Each of the parties filed affidavits in support of their respective contentions and the trial judge entered an order, after hearing argument but no evidence, removing Mr. Riskin as counsel.

Removal of counsel for one of the parties is a serious matter which should be done only after an adequate hearing. The affidavits filed by the parties do not agree on the issue presented, thus necessitating an evidentiary hearing.

*494Accordingly, the petition for writ of cer-tiorari is granted and the order being reviewed is quashed and the cause is remanded with directions to hold an evidentiary hearing on the motion to disqualify counsel.

CROSS and DAUKSCH, JJ., concur.
#### UNITED STATES of America ex rel. Antonio CONTE, Relator-Appellant, v. Byron H. UHL, the District Director of Immigration, Port of New York, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 180.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Jan. 18, 1937.

S. Joseph Corrao, of Brooklyn, N. Y. (John F. O’Neil, of counsel), for appellant.

Lamar Hardy, U. S. Atty., of New York City (Thomas McCall, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City, of counsel), for appellee.

Before MANTON, L. HAND, and AUGUSTUS N. HAND, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Order affirmed.
#### Albert D. HILL, et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI, etc., Metropolitan Dade County, et al., Appellees.

No. 69-528.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Sept. 15, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 13, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


As  independent  public  accountants,  we hereby consent to the inclusion of our
report  dated  February  5, 1996 in this Form 10-K and to the  incorporation  by
reference into The Morgan Group, Inc.'s previously filed Registration Statements
on Form S-8 (Registration Nos. 33-72996,  33-72998).  It should be noted that we
have not audited any financial  statements of The Morgan Group, Inc.  subsequent
to December 31, 1995 or performed any audit procedures subsequent to the date of
our report.


                                                         /s/ ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP
Chicago, Illinois,
March 25, 1998
Exhibit 31.2

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Ronald W. Burgess, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of
Key Technology, Inc., certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended September 30, 2006 of Key Technology, Inc.
(the registrant);

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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this 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 report;

4. The registrants other
certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;

(b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;

(c) disclosed in this report any change
in the registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or
is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and;

5. The registrants other certifying
officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):

(a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting
which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; 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 over financial reporting.

Date: December 13, 2006



|                                                 
|-------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Ronald W. Burgess                            
|Ronald W. Burgess                                
|Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3574 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, to 

designate the mastodon as the national fossil of the 

United States. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3574 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Fossil Act’’. 

3 SEC. 2. NATIONAL FOSSIL OF THE UNITED STATES. 

4 (a) DESIGNATION.—Chapter 3 of title 36, United 

5 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol6 lowing: 

7 ‘‘§ 306. National fossil 

8 ‘‘The fossil of the genus Mammut, commonly known 

9 as the mastodon, is the national fossil.’’. 

10 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.—The table of sec11 tions for chapter 3 of title 36, United States Code, is 

12 amended— 

13 (1) by striking the chapter heading and insert14 ing ‘‘NATIONAL ANTHEM, MOTTO, FLO15 RAL EMBLEM, MARCH, TREE, AND FOS16 SIL’’; and 

17 (2) by adding at the end the following: 

‘‘306. National fossil.’’. 

Passed the Senate July 29, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 

118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3574 

AN ACT 

To amend chapter 3 of title 36, United States 

fossil of the United States. Code, to designate the mastodon as the national
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3412 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Richard H. Poff Federal Building located 

at 210 Franklin Road Southwest in Roanoke, Virginia, 

as the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building’’, and for 

other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

†S 3412 ES

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson 

3 Federal Building Act of 2023’’. 

4 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

5 Congress finds that— 

6 (1) Reuben E. Lawson dedicated his life and 

7 career to promoting the ideals of equality and inclu8 sion as a lawyer for the Roanoke chapter of the Na9 tional Association for the Advancement of Colored 

10 People (commonly known as the ‘‘NAACP’’) who ac11 tively worked to end segregation in Southwest Vir12 ginia; 

13 (2) arguing a number of significant cases in the 

14 Western District of Virginia, Reuben E. Lawson 

15 fought to ensure the enforcement of Brown v. Board 

16 of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), so 

17 that schools in the Roanoke region would be fully in18 tegrated; and 

19 (3) Southwest Virginians are indebted to Reu20 ben E. Lawson for his important work in ending 

21 segregation, and it is fitting that he be remembered 

22 in the current home of the court in which he val23 iantly fought. 

24 SEC. 3. REUBEN E. LAWSON FEDERAL BUILDING. 

25 (a) REDESIGNATION.—The Richard H. Poff Federal 

26 Building located at 210 Franklin Road Southwest in Roa-
3 

†S 3412 ES

1 noke, Virginia, shall be known and designated as the 

2 ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Federal Building’’. 

3 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg4 ulation, document, paper, or other record of the United 

5 States to the Richard H. Poff Federal Building shall be 

6 deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson Fed7 eral Building’’. 

Passed the Senate February 27, 2024. 

Attest: 

Secretary. 
118TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3412 

AN ACT 

To redesignate the Richard H. Poff Federal BuildFederal Building’’, and for other purposes. Roanoke, Virginia, as the ‘‘Reuben E. Lawson ing located at 210 Franklin Road Southwest in
#### Boyd Maxwell O’NEAL, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 3, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

 

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of iParty Corp. (the “Company”) on Form10-Q for the period ended September 24, 2005, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C Section 1350,that to my knowledge:

 

(1)                     The Reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

 

 

Date: November 7, 2005
|   | /s/ SAL PERISANO        |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Sal Perisano            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer |

 

----
Exhibit 8.1List of Significant Subsidiaries



The significant subsidiaries and joint ventures of Cookson Group plc and the
jurisdictions in which they are organised as at 31 December 2002 were as follows:



|Name                                                  |  | Jurisdiction of organisation
|----------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Cookson America, Inc.                                 |  | Delaware, United States     
|Cookson Australia Pty Ltd                             |  | Australia                   
|Cookson Ceramics Ltd                                  |  | England and Wales           
|Cookson (Europe) SA                                   |  | Switzerland                 
|Cookson Fukuda Ltd (Joint Venture)                    |  | England and Wales           
|Cookson Investments, Inc.                             |  | Delaware, United States     
|Cookson Investments Ltd                               |  | England and Wales           
|Cookson Overseas Ltd                                  |  | England and Wales           
|Cookson Singapore Pte Ltd                             |  | Singapore                   
|Electroplating Engineers of Japan Ltd (Joint Venture) |  | Japan                       
|Frys Metals Inc.                                     |  | Delaware, United States     
|Polyclad Laminates, Inc.                              |  | Massachusetts, United States
|Speedline Technologies, Inc.                          |  | Delaware, United States     
|Stern/Leach Company                                   |  | Delaware, United States     
|Stern Metals, Inc.                                    |  | Rhode Island, United States 
|Vesuvius Crucible Company                             |  | Delaware, United States     
|Vesuvius USA Corporation                              |  | Illinois, United States     
|Wilkes-Lucas Ltd                                      |  | England and Wales
1

MEMORANDUM 

TO: Maj’d El-Zoobi, EPA/OPPT/CEB 

FROM: Anjali Lamba, ERG 

 

DATE: January 20, 2009 

SUBJECT: Work Assignment 3-01; IH review of responses to P07-0601 test data 

limitations. 

The purpose of this memorandum is to review responses to the 

comments provided by ERG in its earlier review of the worker inhalation monitoring test 

data submitted by . The monitoring was performed by at , the , and the from 

September 17 through September 19, 2008. 

This review ascertains whether the responses provided by the submitter adequately 

address the study limitations identified in the ERG review. Additional information 

included by the submitter on the analytical method chosen, the sampling duration, the 

nature of the assembly process, and the building and process systems alleviates some of 

the concerns noted previously by ERG. Since it has been clearly stated by the industrial 

hygiene program manager that the driver for selecting a specific number of employees for 

monitoring was internal experience as well external observations, the need to include a 

total number of workers by each job title is no longer an issue. 

The only two areas from the previous ERG review which the submitter has failed to 

address are listed below: 

• The study does not provide information on whether there may be other tasks with 

potential for worker exposure; e.g., tasks performed by workers involved in nonroutine activities. Note, these workers might not belong to the same job 

classifications as those associated with of the .

• If different employees work different shifts, or an employee works different shifts 

on different days, then exposures should be characterized for each shift. 

It is recommended that the submitter provide clarifications to indicate whether there is 

any potential for exposure of workers above the monitoring result values when engaged 

in non-routine activities or during the type of shift work noted above.
**Transcript: "Ways to Cope with the Fear of Cancer Returning"**

Worry about cancer coming back is a very common problem after treatment ends. One wonders, "Gee, now that the therapy has stopped, is the cancer going to start re-growing again?" So this is, again, almost universal. People think about this after cancer treatment ends. 

One of the ways to manage it is have good information about what is the likelihood that cancer will come back. What are some of the kinds of things that you need to be looking for or worrying about? Having that  knowledge can give one a sense of control over what's happening, so that you may feel much more relieved that perhaps you are at lower risk than you thought you were of having cancer.

Other ways to manage what we call fear of recurrence are to keep busy, having other plans in your life, and realizing that that there are things in your life that you can control, even if you are not positive that you can alter outcomes for your cancer in the future.

Many survivors tell us that over time, in particular as that first year after therapy ends,  that worry about the cancer coming back diminishes.

At the same time, we also know that there are some events that trigger that worry. Follow-up visits with a healthcare provider may re-elicit all those feelings about worry that the cancer's come back. What will I do if the tests show up there's something there? So again, anticipating that and realizing that's a very normal response, and knowing that you are doing the right thing for yourself are important in easing that anxiety over time.

If it persists, though--and for some individuals, it doesn't go away over  time or may get worse and may make them feel very anxious about doctors' visits--it's helpful again to talk to your healthcare team because talking perhaps to a counselor about what you are worrying about and what you might do to alleviate that anxiety could be very helpful.
### -86 -84 -82 -80 -78 -76 -74

36 38 40 42



## ★

▲ ▲ ▲ ▲



## ★ ▲ ▲ ▲ ▲ 

### 500 1000 1500 100 18 12 06 00 08/03 

## NOAA HYSPLIT MODEL 

# Backward trajectory ending at 2300 UTC 03 Aug 06

EDAS Meteorological DataSource★at 38.81 N 76.74 WMeters AGL 

## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■



## ★ ■ ■ ■ ■ 

## ★ ● ● ● ●



## ★ ● ● ● ●
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 199 (Wednesday, October 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 53592-53593]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27229]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    DOC has submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
clearance the following proposal for collection of information under 
the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. chapter 35).
    Agency: Bureau of the Census.
    Title: Transportation Annual Survey.
    Form Number(s): B-514, -515, -524, -525, -530, -531, -532, -533, -
900-L1, -900-L2, -900-L3, -900-L4.
    Agency Approval Number: 0607-0798.
    Type of Request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    Burden: 10,908 hours.
    Number of Respondents: 4,000.
    Avg Hours Per Response: 2.73 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The Census Bureau originally obtained approval for 
the Transportation Annual Survey (TAS) in 1994 which replaced and 
expanded upon the existing Motor Freight Transportation and Warehousing 
Survey (WATS) that covered the trucking and public warehousing 
industries. The new TAS also included transportation by waterway and 
segments of the busing industry, specifically intercity and rural bus 
transportation, bus charter service, and terminal and service 
facilities. In addition, it introduced new data items to the trucking 
forms which have enabled us to publish total miles traveled, percentage 
of miles traveled with loaded or empty vehicles, weight of shipments, 
and revenue from transborder shipments. Due to funding issues, we have 
not yet implemented the busing and waterway transportation portion of 
the TAS. This request for extension, again includes these two 
industries and collection of these data is, again contingent upon 
funding.
    Affected Public: Businesses or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Annually.

[[Page 53593]]

    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    Legal Authority: Title 13 USC, Sections 131, 182, 224, and 225.
    OMB Desk Officer: Jerry Coffey, (202) 395-7314.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Linda Engelmeier, DOC Forms Clearance Officer, 
(202) 482-3272, Department of Commerce, room 5327, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20230.
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to Jerry Coffey, OMB Desk Officer, room 10201, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.

    Dated: October 8, 1997.
Linda Engelmeier,
Departmental Forms Clearance Officer, Office of Management and 
Organization.
[FR Doc. 97-27229 Filed 10-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-07-P
#### Richard L. BLACK, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 44141.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Nov. 15, 1973.

Certiorari denied. 279 So.2d 909.

ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and DEKLE, JJ., concur.

CARLTON, C. J., and ERVIN and McCAIN, JJ., dissent.