alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 220 (Friday, November 14, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61150]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29985]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Scientific Computing; Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting;

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Advanced Scientific Computing 
(#1185).
    Date and Time: December 8, 1997, 8:30 am to 5:00 pm.
    Place: National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Suite 
1105.17, Arlington, VA.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. John Van Rosendale, Program Director, New 
Technologies Program, Suite 1122, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230, (703) 306-1962.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide recommendations and advice 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: Panel review of the New Technologies Program proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b (c) (4) and 
(6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.
M. Rebecca Winkler,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29985 Filed 11-13-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

DANIELLE WEINBERG

, Appellant,

v.

FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 20

- 1847

[ March 18, 2021 ]

Appeal from the Review Appellate Committee of Florida Atlantic

University, Palm Beach County, Florida ; L.T. Case No. ZXXXX5251

.

Robin I. Bresky and Jennifer L. Fulton of Law Offices of Robin Bresky,

Boca Raton, for appellant.

Oscar E. Marrero and Lourdes E. Wydler of M arrero & Wydler, Coral

Gables, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ROSS

, M AY and A RTAU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 223 (Wednesday, November 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61814]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30307]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP98-68-000]


Natural Gas Pipeline Company of America; Notice of Request under 
Blanket Authorization

November 13, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 5, 1997, Natural Gas Pipeline Company 
of America (Natural), 701 East 22nd Street, Lombard, Illinois 60148, 
filed in Docket No. CP98-68-000 a request pursuant to Sections 157.205, 
and 157.212, of the Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act 
(18 CFR 157.205, 157.212) for authorization to construct and operate 
facilities in Lonoke County, Arkansas, under Natural's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-402-000 pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act, all as more fully set forth in the request that is 
on file with the Commission and open to public inspection.
    Natural proposes to install a 2-inch meter and 3-inch side tap 
facilities for an interconnection with Arkla, a Division of Noram 
Energy Corporation (Arkla). These facilities will be constructed to 
deliver approximately 1,000 MMBtu per day of natural gas to Arkla in 
Cabot, Arkansas. They are estimated to cost $55,000. Natural states 
that it has sufficient capacity to provide these services at the 
proposed delivery point without detriment or disadvantage to Natural's 
peak day and annual delivery capacity.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Procedural Rules (18 CFR 385.214) a motion to 
intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant to Section 157.205 of 
the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205) a protest to 
the request. If no request is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activity shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn within 30 days after the time allowed for filing a 
protest, the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30307 Filed 11-18-08; 8:45am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Ulysess BYRD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-349.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Jan. 18, 1971.

Appeal dismissed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen

Kurtis T. Wilder,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

September 22, 2017

t0919 

# Order

Clerk September 22, 2017

155380

KERRI HUNTER OTTO, Next Friend of

BAILEY ANN MARIE NOBLE, Minor,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 155380

COA: 330214

Benzie CC: 14

- 009969

- NO

INN AT WATERVALE, INC.,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 17, 2017

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. The parties shall

address whether the activities engaged in by the plaintiff’s Next Friend and her three

companions constituted “other outdoor recreational use” of the defendant’s land under

the Recreational Land Use Act , MCL 324.73301(1). The time allowed for oral argument

shall be 20 minutes for each side. MCR 7.314(B)(1).

The Heart of the Lakes Center for Land Conservation Policy, Real Property Law

Section of the State Bar of Michigan, and Environmental Law Sectio n of the State Bar of

Michigan are invited to file briefs amicus curiae. Other persons or groups interested in

the determination of the issue presented in this case may move the Court for permission

to file briefs amicus curiae.

W ILDER , J., not particip ating because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


           In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Colonial
  Commercial Corp. (the "Company") for the three months and six months ended
  June 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
  hereof (the "report"), I, James W. Stewart, Chief Financial Officer of the
  Company, certify, pursuant to section 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adopted pursuant to
  section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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 results
                     of operations of the Company.

  By:  /S/ JAMES W. STEWART
       ---------------------

  Name:  JAMES W. STEWART
         Chief Financial Officer

 November 14, 2003
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

1212 

CAF 14-01584 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., SMITH, CENTRA, WHALEN, AND DEJOSEPH, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF MICHELE DAVIS, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

KEVIN L. WILLIAMS, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

LOVALLO & WILLIAMS, BUFFALO (TIMOTHY R. LOVALLO OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Erie County (Deanne M.

Tripi, J.), entered July 15, 2014 in a proceeding pursuant to Family

Court Act article 4. The order revoked a suspended sentence and 

committed respondent to jail for a period of six months. 

It is hereby ORDERED that said appeal is unanimously dismissed

without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent father appeals from an order of

commitment revoking a suspended sentence and committing him to jail

for a period of six months. Inasmuch as respondent has served his

sentence, his appeal from the order of commitment is moot (see Matter

of Ontario County Support Collection Unit v Falconer, ___ AD3d ___,

___ [Oct. 9, 2015]). To the extent that respondent contends that his

appeal is not moot because “a finding of contempt [and willful

violation] may have significant collateral consequences,” we note that

he failed to appeal from the order finding him in willful violation of

the order requiring him to pay child support (see Matter of St.

Lawrence County Support Collection Unit v Pratt, 24 AD3d 1050, 1050). 

Similarly, respondent’s remaining contentions that his support

obligations should be reduced and his arrears capped were not

addressed by the order appealed from and, in any event, are improperly

raised for the first time on appeal (see Matter of Kasprowicz v

Osgood, 101 AD3d 1760, 1761, lv denied 20 NY3d 863; Matter of

Commissioner of Social Servs. v Turner, 99 AD3d 1244, 1245).

Entered: November 20, 2015 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-7644
WILLIAM W. WILKINS, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versus VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD, et al., Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, District Judge. (CA-95-1360-AM) Submitted: January 11, 1996 Decided: January 25, 1996 Before RUSSELL, HALL, and WILKINSON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William W. Wilkins, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Wilkins v. Virginia Parole Board , No. CA-95-1360-AM (E.D. Va. Sept. 28, 1995). We dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1632 

To prohibit the transfer or release of individuals detained at United States 

Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to the United States. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 8, 2021 

Mr. FALLON introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To prohibit the transfer or release of individuals detained 

at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, 

to the United States. 

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

3 SECTION 1. PROHIBITION ON TRANSFER OR RELEASE OF 

4 INDIVIDUALS DETAINED AT UNITED STATES 

5 NAVAL STATION, GUANTANAMO BAY, CUBA, 

6 TO THE UNITED STATES. 

7 No amounts authorized to be appropriated or other8 wise made available for any department or agency of the 

9 United States for any fiscal year may be used to transfer, 

10 release, or assist in the transfer of or release to or within 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 1632 IH

1 the United States, its territories, or possessions any de2 tainee who— 

3 (1) is not a United States citizen or a member 

4 of the Armed Forces of the United States; and 

5 (2) is or was held on or after January 20, 

6 2009, at United States Naval Station, Guantanamo 

7 Bay, Cuba, by the Department of Defense. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE

SECOND CIRCUIT

____________

At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the 

Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 

28th day of May, two thousand twenty one. 

Present: DEBRA ANN LIVINGSTON,

Chief Judge, 

GUIDO CALABRESI, 

ROSEMARY S. POOLER,

Circuit Judges. 

____________________________________________ 

People of the State of New York by Letitia James, Attorney General of the 

State of New York, 

Plaintiff–Appellant—Cross–Appellee, 

18-2454-cv

18-2623-cv

v. 18-2627-cv

18-2630-cv

Kenneth Griepp, Ronald George, Patricia Musco, Ranville Thomas, 

Osayinwense Okuonghae, Anne Kaminsky, Brian George, Sharon 

Richards, Deborah M. Ryan, Angela Braxton, Jasmine LaLande, Prisca 

Joseph, Scott Fitchett, Jr.,

Defendants–Appellees—Cross–Appellants, 

____________________________________________

The petitions for rehearing are GRANTED. The panel hereby VACATES its previous 

opinion. Accordingly, the decision of the district court remains in place. 

FOR THE COURT:

Catherine O’Hagan Wolfe, Clerk

18-2454

People of the State of New York v. Greipp
#### David GILLETT, Individually, and d/b/a Gillett Rentals, Inc., Appellant, v. Charles CALLAWAY, Appellee.

No. 73-231.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Jan. 31, 1974.

Patrick W. E. Gillen, Jr. and James P. O’Flarity of Law Offices of James P. O’Flarity, Ft. Lauderdale, for appellant.

Herman M. Klemick, III, Coral Gables, George P. Telepas, and Preddy, Haddad & Hardy, Miami, for appellee.

OWEN, Chief Judge.

In a civil action for damages the plaintiff’s complaint was dismissed with prejudice as a sanction under Rule 1.380, RCP, 30 F.S.A., for failure to comply with certain orders relating to discovery. His timely motion to vacate was granted. It is the latter order which defendant now appeals.

Despite appellant’s contention that the motion to vacate, if proper at all, could be brought under no rule other than 1.530, RCP, 31 F.S.A., it is apparent to us that the motion was filed pursuant to Rule 1.-540(b) on the basis of counsel’s excusable neglect. The order dismissing the complaint with prejudice had been entered because on four occasions plaintiff and his counsel had failed to appear for the taking of plaintiff’s deposition, the last of which had been scheduled pursuant to order of court rather than upon mere notice. The motion to vacate, and the affidavits in support thereof, set forth the various reasons why plaintiff’s counsel had been unable to attend at the scheduled times, due either to being out of state on vacation, engaged in trial, or in the hospital for surgery. Plaintiff’s counsel also conceded that the failure of the plaintiff to attend was due solely to the fault of counsel and not to any willful refusal on the part of the plaintiff.

While the several grounds presented in support of the motion to vacate may have been marginal in substance, the issue is whether the court abused its discretion in vacating the dismissal with prejudice. Rogers v. First National Bank at Winter Park, Fla.1970, 232 So.2d 377. Upon the rationale of such cases as Beasley v. Girten, Fla.1952, 61 So.2d 179; Crystal Lake Golf Course, Inc. v. Kalin, Fla.App.1971, *37252 So.2d 379 and Goldman v. Tabor, Fla.App.1970, 239 So.2d 529 (all holding that counsel’s failure to comply with the court’s order should not result in punishment to the litigant), we hold that no abuse of discretion was shown here.

Affirmed.

DOWNEY, J, and PAUL, MAURICE M., Associate Judge, concur.
#### In re ESTATE of Andres D. LUCAS, Deceased.

No. 73-650.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 14, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Joe HARMON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 45687.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Feb. 9, 1970.

Garner, Whitten, May & Garner, Her-nando, for appellant.

A. F. Summer, Atty. Gen., by Guy N. Rogers, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Samuel H. Wilkins, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
July 23 , 2015

M r. Barret Ayres

President, CEO

Ronin Automata, LLC

16211 North Scottsdale Road A6A

Suite 235

Scottsdale, AZ 85254

Dear Mr. Ayres :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not process your

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your May 11

, 2015 exemption request on behalf of Ronin Automata, LLC into the

public docket (No. FAA

- 20 15

- 1555 ), but we are unable to process your request any further.

The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed).

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, h ow it would

benefit the public as a whole.

 Any additional i nformation, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your

petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any ques tions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

B rittany N ewton

Program Analyst , Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 218 (Wednesday, November 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 60695]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-29743]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY


Environmental Management Site-Specific Advisory Board, Monticello 
Site

AGENCY: Department of Energy.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, 86 Stat. 770) notice is hereby given of the 
following Advisory Board Committee Meeting: Environmental Management 
Site-Specific Advisory Board, Monticello Site.

DATES AND TIMES: Wednesday, December 10, 1997, 6:00 p.m.-8:00 p.m.

ADDRESSES: San Juan County Courthouse, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 117 
South Main, Monticello, Utah 84535.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Audrey Berry, Public Affairs 
Specialist, Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office, P.O. 
Box 2567, Grand Junction, CO, 81502 (970) 248-7727.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Purpose of the Board: The purpose of the Board is to advise DOE and 
its regulators in the areas of environmental restoration, waste 
management, and related activities.
    Tentative Agenda: Update on project status, and reports from 
subcommittees on local training and hiring, health and safety, and 
future land use.
    Public Participation: The meeting is open to the public. Written 
statements may be filed with the committee either before or after the 
meeting. Individuals who wish to make oral statements pertaining to 
agenda items should contact Audrey Berry's office at the address or 
telephone number listed above. Requests must be received 5 days prior 
to the meeting and reasonable provision will be made to include the 
presentation in the agenda. The Designated Federal Officer is empowered 
to conduct the meeting in a fashion that will facilitate the orderly 
conduct of business. Each individual wishing to make public comment 
will be provided a maximum of 5 minutes to present their comments at 
the end of the meeting.
    Minutes: The minutes of this meeting will be available for public 
review and copying at the Freedom of Information Public Reading Room, 
1E-190, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, 
DC 20585 between 9:00 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday-Friday, except Federal 
holidays. Minutes will also be available by writing to Audrey Berry, 
Department of Energy Grand Junction Projects Office, P.O. Box 2567, 
Grand Junction, CO 81502, or by calling her at (303) 248-7727.

    Issued at Washington, DC on November 4, 1997.
Rachel Samuel,
Deputy Advisory Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-29743 Filed 11-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE GOLDEN
NORTHWEST ALUMINUM, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<NAME>                        Golden Northwest Aluminum, Inc.
<CIK>                         0001079177
<MULTIPLIER>                  1000

<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                          6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                 2,054
<SECURITIES>                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                         48,908
<ALLOWANCES>                           1,000
<INVENTORY>                           60,952
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     117,965
<PP&E>                               125,623
<DEPRECIATION>                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       343,304
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 55,999
<BONDS>                              170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      0
<PREFERRED>                           29,663
<COMMON>                                   0
<OTHER-SE>                            65,504
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         343,304
<SALES>                              210,347
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     210,347
<CGS>                                205,330
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        205,330
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                       7,286
<LOSS-PROVISION>                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                  (11,262)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (13,006)
<INCOME-TAX>                         (2,065)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (10,941)
<DISCONTINUED>                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                            0
<CHANGES>                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                        (10,941)
<EPS-BASIC>                       (12,765)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       (12,765)


</TABLE>