alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63738]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31516]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Draft Regulatory Guide; Extension of Comment Period

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission issued Draft Regulatory Guide DG-
1070, ``Sampling Plans Used for Dedicating Simple Metallic Commercial 
Grade Items for Use in Nuclear Power Plants,'' for public comment in 
September 1997 (see 62 FR 52166). This draft guide is being developed 
to describe methods acceptable to the NRC staff for complying with the 
NRC's regulations with regard to quality assurance requirements when 
using a sampling plan for dedicating simple metallic commercial grade 
items for unrestricted use in nuclear power plants.
    The Nuclear Energy Institute has requested a 60-day extension of 
the comment period. The NRC hereby grants NEI's request and extends the 
comment period from December 1, 1997, to January 30, 1998.
    Written comments may be submitted to the Rules and Directives 
Branch, Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555. Copies of comments received may be examined at 
the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW., Washington, DC.
    Comments may also be submitted via the NRC's interactive rulemaking 
website through the NRC home page (http://www.nrc.gov). This site 
provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if 
your web browser supports that function. For information about the 
interactive rulemaking website, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher, (301) 415-
5905; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection" class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ddedcdaddf3effeb3faf2ebb3">[email protected]</a>
    Regulatory guides are available for inspection at the Commission's 
Public Document Room, 2120 L Street NW., Washington, DC. Requests for 
single copies of draft or final guides should be made in writing to the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, Attention: 
Printing, Graphics and Distribution Branch; or by fax at (301) 415-
5272. Telephone requests cannot be accommodated. Regulatory guides are 
not copyrighted, and Commission approval is not required to reproduce 
them.

(5 U.S.C. 552(a))

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 25th day of November 1997.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
John W. Craig,
Deputy Director, Division of Engineering Technology, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 97-31516 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
|   | (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/ Li Wu                                                                                   |   |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |  Li Wu                                                                                       |   |
|   |   |  Chief Financial Officer (principal financial officer and principal accounting officer) |

----
BE AEROSPACE, INC.


                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                                 AS REQUIRED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Annual Report of BE Aerospace, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Thomas
P. McCaffrey, Senior Vice President of Administration and Chief Financial
Officer of the Company, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date: March 15, 2006                 By: /s/ Thomas P. McCaffrey
                                         -----------------------
                                         Thomas P. McCaffrey
                                         Senior Vice President of Administration
                                         and Chief Financial Officer
SUPPLEMENTAL RELEASE:

TREASURY’S MARKET FINANCING ESTIMATES

Today, the Treasury Department announced net borrowing of marketable debt for 

the January – March 2004 and April – June 2004 quarters.

Quarter

Estimated

Borrowing 

($ billion)

End-of-Quarter

Cash Balance

($ billion)

Jan – Mar 2004 $177 $20

Apr – Jun 2004 $75 $45

Since 1997, the average forecast error in net market borrowing for the current 

quarter is $9 billion, of which $3 billion is attributable to differences in the end-ofquarter cash balance. Similarly, the average forecast error for the following 

quarter is $21 billion, of which $3 billion is attributable to differences in the endof-quarter cash balance.

The following tables display and reconcile the variation between forecasted and

actual net marketable borrowing in the October – December 2003 quarter.

Quarter

Estimated 

Borrowing

($ billions)

Actual

Borrowing

($ billions)

Estimated

End-ofQuarter Cash 

Balance

($ billions)

Actual

End-ofQuarter Cash 

Balance

($ billions)

Oct – Dec 2003 $117 $113 $35 $33

Categories ? from Nov Estimate 

1/

Receipts $0

Outlays +$7

Non-Marketable 

Activity

-$5

Change in Cash

Balance

+$2

Decrease in Borrowing +$4

 1/ “+” and “-“ represents the impact on financing needs. “+” represents

 a decrease in financing, while “-“ represents an increase.

Additional financing details relating to Treasury’s Quarterly Refunding will be 

released at 9:00 A.M. on Wednesday, February 5.
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 222 (Tuesday, November 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 61498]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-30189]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-167-009]

Columbia Gas Transmission Corporation; Notice of Compliance 
Filing

November 12, 1997.
    Take notice that on November 6, 1997, Columbia Gas Transmission 
Corporation (Columbia) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC 
Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff 
sheet with a proposed effective date of November 1, 1997:

Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 456

    Columbia states that the revised tariff sheet is being filed to 
comply with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's Letter Order 
issued October 27, 1997, in Docket No. RP97-167-008. The Order directed 
Columbia to file a revised tariff Sheet No. 456 to (1) incorporate by 
reference GISB standards 1.3.24, 1.3.25, 1.3.27, 1.3.31 and 2.3.31, and 
(2) to reflect Version 1.1 as the effective version for all GISB 
standards, with the exception of the Electronic Delivery Mechanism 
Standards (4.x.x) effective November 1, 1997 pursuant to Order 587-C. 
Columbia states that Substitute Fourth Revised Sheet No. 456 also 
reflects the inclusion of GISB standard 2.3.9 that was included on the 
pro forma tariff sheet filed April 30, 1997, but was inadvertently 
omitted from Columbia's September 29, 1997 filing.
    Columbia states that copies of its filings have been mailed to all 
of its customers, affected State Regulatory Commissions, and all 
parties to this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing, should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protests must be made as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
consider by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be 
taken, but such protests will not serve to make protestants parties to 
this proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission 
and are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-30189 Filed 11-17-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
2002 2003 Mar-03 Mar-04 Dec-03 Jan-04 

1 Gross Purchases of Domestic Securities 13,022.9 15,726.4 13,319.3 17,061.4 1,198.8 1,385.6 2 Gross Sales of Domestic Securities 12,475.4 14,981.4 12,745.9 16,188.2 1,118.0 1,285.3 3 Domestic Securities Purchased, net (line 1 less line 2) /1 547.6 745.0 573.4 873.2 80.8 100.3 

4 Private, net /2 508.3 605.6 517.5 662.1 64.5 69.4 5 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 112.8 163.7 114.9 213.5 18.4 20.0 6 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 166.6 137.9 178.4 141.3 12.9 23.4 7 Corporate Bonds, net 176.7 266.1 193.0 265.1 19.7 12.5 8 Equities, net 52.2 37.9 31.2 42.2 13.5 13.4 9 Official, net 39.3 139.4 55.9 211.2 16.3 31.0 

10 Treasury Bonds & Notes, net 7.1 109.3 19.5 177.5 11.3 26.9 11 Gov't Agency Bonds, net 28.6 24.9 32.2 28.3 4.4 4.2 12 Corporate Bonds, net 5.6 5.5 4.8 6.2 0.7 0.5 13 Equities, net -2.0 -0.4 -0.7 -0.9 -0.1 -0.6 14 Gross Purchases of Foreign Securities 2,640.0 3,532.9 2,718.5 4,122.7 310.4 390.7 15 Gross Sales of Foreign Securities 2,613.0 3,577.4 2,708.5 4,175.2 315.5 399.3 16 Foreign Securities Purchased, net (line 14 less line 15) /3 27.0 -44.6 10.0 -52.5 -5.0 -8.5 17 Foreign Bonds Purchased, net 28.5 26.6 34.8 21.8 0.1 4.7 18 Foreign Equities Purchased, net -1.5 -71.1 -24.8 -74.3 -5.2 -13.2 19 Net Long-Term Flows (line 3 plus line 16) 574.6 700.4 583.4 820.8 75.8 91.8 

/1 Net foreign purchases of U.S. securities (+)/2 Includes International and Regional Organizations/3 Net U.S. acquisitions of foreign securities (-)Source: U.S. Department of the Treasury

12 Months Through
#### Yehuda SHARON, aka Eugene Warner, Plaintiff-counter-defendant—Appellant, v. NISSAN MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, Defendant-counter-claimant—Appellee.

No. 01-15588.

D.C. No. CV-99-01420-RLH/LRL.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted July 9, 2002.

Decided Aug. 5, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, FISHER, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

Sharon appeals the district court’s dismissal of his action against the Nissan Motors Acceptance Corporation (NMAC). The district court dismissed Sharon’s pro se federal claims with prejudice, and then dismissed his state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

The district court dismissed Sharon’s claim under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), 15 U.S.C. § 1692*et seq.,*on the ground that NMAC was not a “debt collector” as defined by the statute. The dismissal was pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. However, the district court relied on material outside the scope of the complaint in *158reaching this conclusion, and thereby erred in dismissing on the pleadings. *Branch v. Tunnell,*14 F.3d 449, 453 (9th Cir.1994); *Garaux v.*Pulley, 739 F.2d 437, 439-40 (9th Cir.1984).

The district court dismissed Sharon’s claim under the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA), 15 U.S.C. § 1681*et seq.,*on the ground that the Act only applied to credit reporting agencies. The FCRA also imposes obligations on entities that report information to credit reporting agencies. 15 U.S.C. § 1681s-2(b). Sharon’s complaint alleged that NMAC had reported incorrect information about him to credit reporting agencies. The district court therefore erred in dismissing Sharon’s FCRA claim on the pleadings.

The district court acknowledged that Sharon’s complaint stated a claim for relief under federal law, but did not inform Sharon under what federal law that claim arose. Rather, the district court simply offered Sharon leave to amend to identify the correct statute. On remand, Sharon should be permitted leave to amend his complaint to specifically cite the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), 15 U.S.C. § 1638.

The district court dismissed Sharon’s state law claims without prejudice only because it believed Sharon had not stated any actionable federal claims. The district court erred in dismissing those claims because Sharon sought damages in excess of $75,000 for his state law causes of action and, therefore, met the requirements to establish the district court’s diversity jurisdiction over those claims. Furthermore, since we are reversing and remanding the dismissal of Sharon’s FDCPA, FCRA, and TILA claims for further proceedings, we reverse the dismissal of Sharon’s state law claims on that ground as well.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
# Materials Not Included in **Airworthiness Directive (AD) Docket**

Docket Number: F AA - 2014 - 0524 Directorate Identifier: 2014NM042AD

84 - 26 - 15 --- 6/7/13

Name/Description of Item(s) Not Included in FDMS Docket and Maintained in the Supplemental AD Docket 

### MA **Y BE VIEWED AT:** Federal Aviation Administration

Transport Airplane Directorate Rules Docket 1601 Lind Ave. SW., Renton, WA 98057 425.227.1221 **DURING THE HOURS OF:** 9 a.m. and 3 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. Form Date: 0 3/05/2008
#### CITIES SERVICE OIL COMPANY, Appellant, v. HOUDAILLE-DUVAL-WRIGHT COMPANY, a division of Houdaille Industries, Inc., et al., Appellees.

No. 1951.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Aug. 13, 1969.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 12, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
Order entered May 2 1 , 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas**
No. 05
- 13
- 00927
- CV
JASON MICHAEL SPENCE R, Appellant
V. DEXTRAL CAPITAL, LP, A DELAWARE LIMITED P ARTNERSHIP AND DEXTR AL CAPITAL MANAGEMENT F UND, LP, A DELAWARE LIMI TED PARTNERSHIP, Appellee s On Appeal from the 134th Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 11
- 15530 

### O RDER By order entered April 18, 2014, we abated the appeal to allow the trial court an opportunity to conduct a hearing to d etermine the status of the reporter’s record. Although it does not appear a hearing has been held, the reporter’s record has been filed. Accordingly, we REINSTATE this appeal and VACATE our April 18th order. As the appellate record is now complete, we O RDER appellants to file their brief no later than June 2 3 , 2014.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
2

SALTMONEY.ORG

SALT CREATED BY AMERICAN STUDENT ASSISTANCE
Student Loan Repayment Information 

Repayment Tools
Repayment Tools
My Money 101
Students

Live On Campus

Real 

People

Mobile

Social

Innovative Content

Game 

Changing 

Curriculum

SALT Is An Ecosystem Multiple Channels to Reach Users Multiple Channels of Engagement for the User
Fixx
Face the Red
Face the Red
Face the Red
SALTMONEY.ORG

Paul Combe

President and CEO

American Student Assistance

combe@asa.org
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Jorge RAMIREZ, Defendant—Appellant.

No. 02-50033.

D.C. No. CR-01-02523-NAJ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2000.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM**

Jorge Ramirez appeals his conviction by guilty plea for importation of marijuana, in violation of 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960. Ramirez’s argument that his convictions should be reversed because 21 U.S.C. §§ 952 and 960 are unconstitutional under *Apprendi v. New Jersey,*530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000), is foreclosed by *United States v. Varela-Rivera,*279 F.3d 1174, 1175 n. 1 (9th Cir.2002) (section 952) and *United States v. Mendoza-Paz,*286 F.3d 1104, 1109-11 (9th Cir. 2002) (section 960).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the *865courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### David Leroy JONES, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-403.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 2, 1977.

Jack 0. Johnson, Public Defender, and James A. Cornelius, Asst. Public Defender, Bartow, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and William I. Munsey, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The order revoking the appellant’s probation and the judgment are affirmed but this ease is remanded for resentencing of appellant. The present sentence does not specifically set forth the period of credit time to be allowed as required by Section 921.-161(1), Florida Statutes (1975), *Smith v. State,*310 So.2d 770 (Fla.2d DCA 1975). The appellant does not have to be present at resentencing.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and McNULTY and SCHEB, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT

| in thousands, except share and per share data                                                       |   | 12 Weeks Ended |       |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------|------------|
|                                                                                                |   | May 1, 2010    |       |   | May 2, 2009 |   |
| Diluted:                                                                                            |   |           |       |   |   |   |
|      Net income applicable to common shares                                     |   | $              | 6,540      |   |   | $ | 2,329 |   |
|                                                                                                |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                                                                             |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
|      Weighted average number of common shares outstanding                       |   |           | 9,302,882  |   |   |   | 9,600,580 |   |
|      Dilutive effect of exercise of certain stock options                       |   |           | 1,814      |   |   |   | - |   |
|      Less: Treasury stock - weighted average                                    |   |           | (2,128,219 | ) |   |   | (2,651,781 | ) |
|                                                                                                |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
|      Weighted average number of common and common equivalent shares outstanding |   |           | 7,176,477  |   |   |   | 6,948,799 |   |
|                                                                                                |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
|      Net income per common and common equivalent shares                         |   | $              | 0.91       |   |   | $ | 0.34 |   |
|                                                                                                |   |           |       |   |   |   |   |   |
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. Heinz SCHIRMAIER, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-30440.

D.C. No. CR-01-00210-TSZ.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Argued and Submitted Aug. 9, 2002.

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

Before NOONAN, HAWKINS and GOULD, Circuit Judges.

MEMORANDUM *

For more than 20 years, defendant Heinz Schirmaier wrongfully used the identity of Charles Swanson. During that time, Schirmaier incurred debt, earned taxable income, married twice and was convicted of a criminal offense, all in the Swanson name. Through considerable effort and expense, Charles Swanson was able to track down his impersonator and report Schirmaier’s location to authorities. When approached by government agents, Schirmaier relinquished all of “his” Swanson identification and credit cards, only to promptly re-apply for new ones and continue the fraud. On these facts, the district court did not err in granting the government’s motion for a three-level enhancement. The record supports departure on the basis of both the substantial *841non-monetary harm to the victim, and endangerment to the financial security of the victim. *See*U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 comm. n. 15(A)(ii), (v). The record also clearly reflects that the court did not depart on the basis of U.S.S.G. § 2B1.1 comm. n. 15(A)(iv), contrary to appellant’s assertions. Although it is arguable that the non-monetary harm factor was identified in the specific offense guideline, we conclude that Schirmaier’s lengthy and persistent charade took his crime substantially outside the “heartland” for this offense and thus the district court was well within its discretion in granting a further upward departure. *See Koon v. United States,*518 U.S. 81, 92-3, 116 S.Ct. 2035, 135 L.Ed.2d 392 (1996).

AFFIRMED.

*

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-30-1999
<CASH>                                          36,232
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    251,823
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               333,985
<PP&E>                                         274,088
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,200
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 634,720
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          357,341
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       692,886
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,444,806
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   705,495
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               501,106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             (501,106)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (501,106)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (501,106)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 110,348
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (390,758)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>