alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 52616-52617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26675]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Surface Transportation Board
[STB Finance Docket No. 33460]


4 States Railway Service, Inc., d/b/a West Chester Railroad Co.; 
Lease and Operation Exemption; Borough of West Chester

    4 States Railway Service, Inc., d/b/a West Chester Railroad Co., a 
noncarrier, has filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 
1150.31 to sublease and operate 6.405 miles of rail line from the 
Borough of West Chester (Borough) <SUP>1</SUP> between milepost 27.4 +/
-, at Station 1386+06, in West Chester, Chester County, PA, and 
milepost 20.995+/, at Glen Mills Station, Glen Mills, Delaware County, 
PA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The owner of the property is Southeastern Pennsylvania 
Transportation Authority (SEPTA). On December 31, 1996, SEPTA leased 
the line to the Borough for tourist railroad operations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The transaction was scheduled to be consummated on or after 
September 22, 1997.
    If the verified notice contains false or misleading information, 
the exemption is void ab initio. Petitions to reopen the proceeding to 
revoke the exemption under 49 U.S.C. 10502(d) may be filed at any time. 
The filing of a petition to revoke will not automatically stay the 
transaction.
    An original and 10 copies of all pleadings, referring to STB 
Finance Docket No. 33460, must be filed with the Surface Transportation 
Board, Office of the Secretary, Case Control Unit, 1925 K Street, N.W., 
Washington, DC 20423-0001. In addition, a copy of each pleading must be 
served on John K. Fiorilla, Esq., Watson, Stevens, Fiorilla & Rutter, 
390 George Street, P.O. Box 1185, New Brunswick, NJ 08903.

    Decided: September 30, 1997.


[[Page 52617]]


    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26675 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 208 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 55810]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-28682]


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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve 
System.

TIME AND DATE: 11:00 a.m., Monday, November 3, 1997.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets, NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

Matters to be Considered:

    1. Status Report of the Committee on the Federal Reserve in the 
Payments Mechanism (Alternative Roles for the Federal Reserve in the 
Retail Payments System). (This item was originally announced for a 
closed meeting on October 20, 1997.)
    2. Personnel actions (appointments, promotions, assignments, 
reassignments, and salary actions) involving individual Federal Reserve 
System employees.
    3. Any items carried forward from a previously announced meeting.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Mr. Joseph R. Coyne, Assistant to 
the Board; (202) 452-3204. You may call (202) 452-3207, beginning at 
approximately 5 p.m. two business days before this meeting, for a 
recorded announcement of bank and bank holding company applications 
scheduled for the meeting.

    Dated: October 24, 1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-28682 Filed 10-24-97; 2:45 pm]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-M
**Exhibit
      32.4**


**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**


**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 Bio Matrix Scientific Group, Inc. (the
      “Company”) on Form 10-QSB/A for the quarter ended December 31, 2006 as filed
      with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
      the undersigned, in the capacities and on the dates indicated below, hereby
      certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
      906
      of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his 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 results of operations of the
      Company.








Dated:
      November 20, 2007


By:
            /s/
                David KoosDavid
                KoosActing
                Chief Financial Officer





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
      Act of 2002, or other document authentications, acknowledging, or otherwise
      adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version
      of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Frezer,
      Inc. and will be retained by Frezer, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
      Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

(18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Varian, Inc. for the period ended
July 3, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date of this certification (the Report), the undersigned hereby certifies, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Report
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Varian, Inc.



|                                    
|------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2009              
|                                    
|/s/ GARRY W. ROGERSON               
|Garry W. Rogerson                   
|Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



A signed original of this written
statement as required by Section 906 has been provided to Varian, Inc. and will be retained by Varian, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Fred Willie STURGIS, Respondent.

No. 39661.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 15, 1970.

Certiorari denied. 233 So.2d 166.

ERVIN, C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-7295

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus FREDERICK G. COSTER, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. William M. Nickerson, Senior District Judge. (00-0406-WMN) Submitted: October 17, 2006 Decided: October 24, 2006 Before NIEMEYER, KING, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Frederick G. Coster, Appellant Pro Se. Andrew Clayton White, SILVERMAN, THOMPSON & WHITE, LLC, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 2 - PER CURIAM: Frederick G. Coster seeks to appeal the district court’s order construing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) motion as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Coster has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.

DISMISSED
254 La. 825

#### Charles DAVIS, individually and on behalf of his minor children Charles Davis, Jr., and Jerry Davis v. ROYAL-GLOBE INSURANCE COMPANIES and Louis C. Philips.

No. 50055.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 6, 1969.

In re: Louis C. Philips and Globe Indemnity Company applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit, Parish of Orleans. 223 So.2d 912.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.

HAMITER, J., concurs in granting, but should be limited to assignments 1, 2, 3 and 8.
#### Jack H. DORROUGH, Appellant, v. STATE of Mississippi, Appellee.

No. 46272.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 1, 1971.

Leslie Darden, New Albany, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen. by Karen Gil-foy, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 9774.

#### Benton *v.*Benton et al.

(Decided December 21, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Lorain County.

*Messrs. Laubscher & Kees,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Willis E. White; Messrs. Kline, Tolies & Goff; Messrs. Garñeld, Howe & Westenhaver*and *Mr. Otis B. Benton,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck,C. J., Price, Summers and .Davis, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3577 Engrossed in Senate (ES)]

<DOC>
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3577

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street in North 
 Platte, Nebraska, as the ``Virginia Smith Federal Building'', 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. VIRGINIA SMITH FEDERAL BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street 
in North Platte, Nebraska, shall be known and designated as the 
``Virginia Smith Federal Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal building 
referred to in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the 
``Virginia Smith Federal Building''.

            Passed the Senate February 27, 2024.

            Attest:

                                                             Secretary.
118th CONGRESS

  2d Session

                                S. 3577

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building located at 300 E. 3rd Street in North 
 Platte, Nebraska, as the ``Virginia Smith Federal Building'', and for 
                            other purposes.
```
#### Dan Allen FRY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-2040.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

June 14, 1978.

Jack O. Johnson, Public Defender, Bar-tow, and Wayne Chalu, Asst. Public Defender, Tampa, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Richard G. Pippinger, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM..

Appellant pled guilty and was given an enhanced sentence as an habitual felony offender under Section 775.084, Florida Statutes (1977). As the basis for the enhanced sentence, the court made only a generalized reference to appellant’s bad record which was apparently set forth in the PSI.

Admittedly, Section 775.084(3)(c) does not require the contents of the PSI to be proved through testimony in the traditional way. Nevertheless, Section 775.084(3)(d) envisions that the court set forth findings which are the basis for the imposition of the enhanced sentence in order that the sentence may be the subject of appellate review. In this case the court failed to specify the evidence upon which it relied to justify the enhanced sentence. *See Grimmett v. State,*357 So.2d 461 (Fla. 2d DCA, filed April 12, 1978).

The judgment is affirmed but the sentence is hereby vacated. The case is remanded for the imposition of a new sentence.

GRIMES, Acting C. J., and OTT and DANAHY, JJ., concur.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

Sunrise Telecom Incorporated: 

 

We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (File Nos. 333-61596,333-43270, 333-96689, and 333-107471) on Form S-8 of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated of our report dated January 28, 2004, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated and subsidiaries as of December 31, 2003 and2002, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, which report appears in the December 31,2003 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Sunrise Telecom Incorporated. 

 

Our report refers tothe Company’s adoption of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 142, *Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets*, effective January 1, 2002. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Mountain View, California 

March 25, 2004
#### Willie Raymond GARRETT, Petitioner, v. J. B. O’CONNOR, M.D., Superintendent, Florida State Hospital, Respondent.

No. 71-36.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 8, 1971.

Habeas corpus denied.
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. John W. BOOTH, Appellee.

No. 69-687.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 6, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Richard Allen BLAKE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-681.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 31, 1970.

*424Hughlan' Long, Public Defender, and Alan S. Becker, Asst. Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and Melvin Grossman, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and CHARLES CARROLL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This appeal is by the defendant below from a judgment of conviction of aggravated assault, rendered in a non-jury trial on July 11, 1969.

The information alleged an assault was committed on December 22, 1968, on a named person, with a deadly weapon, a revolver. The state presented evidence that on the night of the date alleged the defendant entered the victim’s store and fired three shots at him; that the defendant then departed, and after an interval of time, the length of which was not disclosed in the record, returned and fired another shot at the victim.

The appellant contends the evidence disclosed two separate offenses, and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike such testimony or to require the state to elect one of the offenses upon which to rely and proceed. The trial court was of the view that the evidence sufficiently disclosed a single transaction. On considering the record, and the absence of a showing as to the interval which transpired between the firing of the first three shots and the firing of the fourth shot, we agree with the conclusion reached by the able trial judge, and affirm.

There was no multifariousness or duplicity in the information, which charged a single offense. In the absence of any showing of a material or prolonged period of time between the first salvo and the fourth shot fired at the victim, there would appear no reason to consider that they represented two separate assaults than there would be to regard the first three shots at the victim as constituting three separate aggravated assaults upon him.

Affirmed.
Exhibit (4)(b)(viii)



 
Exhibit (4)(b)(viii)

 
GE LIFE AND ANNUITY ASSURANCE COMPANY

VESTED GUARANTEED MINIMUM INCOME PAYMENT ENDORSEMENT 
 

 
The
Contract to which this endorsement is attached is amended by adding the following provision to the Purchase Payments section immediately after the Scheduled Installment provision: 
 
Vested Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment 
 
A Default occurs when either: 

	  	 (1)	 More than 24 Scheduled Installments are paid outside of the grace period over the life of your Contract; or 


	  	 (2)	 A Scheduled Installment, interest that is charged on it and any monthly billing fee are not paid within one year from the Scheduled Installment’s Monthly Due Date.


 
If a Default occurs, the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment
shown on the Contract data pages is forfeited; however, you will be entitled to a reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment. 
 
On the date of Default, the vested Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment will be (a) divided by (b) multiplied by (c), where: 

	  	 (a)	 is the total Scheduled Installments paid into the Subaccount and not previously withdrawn prior to the date of Default; 


	  	 (b)	 is the total Scheduled Installments that are required to be paid into the Subaccount prior to the Annuity Commencement Date to secure the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment
shown on the Contract data pages; and 


	  	 (c)	 is the Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment shown on the Contract data pages. 

 
Restrictions concerning the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment are as follows: 

	  	 •	 Once the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment has been determined, we will not recalculate it again even if subsequent Purchase Payments are made; and



	  	 •	 Once a Default has occurred and the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment has been determined, if a withdrawal is taken from the Subaccount and not repaid with interest
within one year of the date of withdrawal, then the reduced Guaranteed Minimum Income Payment is forfeited. 

 
For GE Life and Annuity Assurance Company, 
 
/s/    PAMELA S. SCHUTZ 
Pamela S. Schutz 
        President
May 19, 2003 

Refer to: HSA-10/B-120 

Mr. Jeffrey R. Bleile 

President, Midwestern Wholesalers, Inc. 

4832 Plank Road – P.O. Box809 

Norwalk, Ohio 44857 

Dear Mr. Bleile: 

In your May 13 letter to Mr. Richard Powers of my staff, you requested the Federal 

Highway Administration’s acceptance of a narrow, wood offset block for use with strong 

post, metal beam guardrail installations on the National Highway System (NHS). 

Your block was made from Grade 1 Southern Yellow Pine with external dimensions of 

4.0-inches wide x 7.375-inches deep x 14.0-inches high (102 mm x 187 mm x 356 mm). 

The post face of the block was routed such that one edge extends 0.375 inches beyond the 

post flange. This one-sided routing (or “tab”) is 0.625-inches wide. A hole 0.875 inches 

in diameter is drilled through the block at its vertical midpoint and 1.625 inches in from 

the edge of the block with the extended routing. These details are shown on the enclosed 

drawing. 

Since no narrow timber blocks or any blocks with routing along one edge only had been 

previously tested, my staff recommended a full scale crash test to confirm satisfactory 

impact performance when this block is used with strong steel post w-beam guardrail. 

The results of your subsequent test were documented in E-TECH Testing Services, Inc. 

May 2003 test report, prepared by Mr. John F. LaTurner and entitled National 

Cooperative Research Program Report 350 Crash Test Results for the Midwestern 

Wholesalers Routed Offset Blockout.” Test 3-11 showed that a 2000-kg pickup truck 

impacting at 99.8 km/h (62mph) and 25 degrees was contained and redirected with very 

low roll and pitch angles. Maximum occupant impact velocity and ridedown 

accelerations were 4.6 m/s (15.1 fps) and 6.7 gs, respectively. Maximum dynamic 

deflection of the barrier was reported to be only 1.0 m (3.3 feet). 

Based on our review of the information you provided, your Midwestern Wholesalers, Inc. 

block is considered acceptable for use on the NHS with a strong steel post guardrail when 

cut to the same dimensions and composed of the same grade and species of timber as the 

tested blocks. 

Please note that this acceptance is based solely on the reported impact behavior of your 

block and 
does not address the long-term performance or durability of this product. I understand 

that this block is not a patented item, so the use restrictions listed in Title 23, Code of 

Federal Regulations, Section 635.411 for proprietary devices are not applicable. 

Sincerely yours, 

(original signed by Michael S. Griffith) 

 

Michael S. Griffith 

 Acting Director, Office of Safety Design 

 Office of Safety 

Enclosure 
Appendix

Midwestern Blockout Crash Test Results - 32 of 34

E-TECH Testing Services, Inc.

Illustration D-4. Midwestern Routed Offset Blockout (1 of 1)
Case 1:06-cv-00005-MBC   Document 15   Filed 06/12/06   Page 1 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00005-MBC   Document 15   Filed 06/12/06   Page 2 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00005-MBC   Document 15   Filed 06/12/06   Page 3 of 4

Case 1:06-cv-00005-MBC   Document 15   Filed 06/12/06   Page 4 of 4
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 201 (Friday, October 17, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 54156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-27591]

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

UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition

Determinations

    Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978) 43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibit, ``Flowers Underfoot: Indian Carpets of the 
Mughal Era'' (See list \1\), imported from abroad for the temporary 
exhibition without profit within the United States are of cultural 
significance. These objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement 
with the foreign lenders. I also determine that the exhibition or 
display of the listed exhibit objects at The Metropolitan Museum of 
Art, New York, New York, from on or about November 17, 1997, to on or 
about March 1, 1998, is in the national interest. Public notice of 
these determinations is ordered to be published in the Federal 
Register.

    \1\ A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Ms. Carol 
B. Epstein, Assistant General Counsel, at 202/619-6981, and the 
address is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: October 10, 1997.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 97-27591 Filed 10-16-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
```
Case 4:07-cv-02204-JEJ Document 10 Filed 04/16/10 Page 1 of 4
Case 4:07-cv-02204-JEJ Document 10 Filed 04/16/10 Page 2 of 4
Case 4:07-cv-02204-JEJ Document 10 Filed 04/16/10 Page 3 of 4
Case 4:07-cv-02204-JEJ Document 10 Filed 04/16/10 Page 4 of 4