alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3261]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act, including whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C.      1843). Unless otherwise 
noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United 
States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 7, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
    1. First Commercial Corporation, Little Rock, Arkansas; to merge 
with Southwest Bancshares, Inc., Jonesboro, Arkansas, and thereby 
indirectly acquire First Bank of Arkansas, Jonesboro, Arkansas; First 
Bank of Arkansas, Russellville, Arkansas; First Bank of Arkansas, 
Searcy, Arkansas; and First Bank of Arkansas, Wynne, Arkansas.
    2. Security Bancorp of Tennessee, Inc., Halls, Tennessee; to 
acquire at least 30 percent of the voting shares of The Bank of 
Jackson, Jackson, Tennessee (in organization).

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 5, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-3261 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002



I, John Adamovich,
Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Aeroflex Holding Corp., hereby certify that the Form 10-K of Aeroflex Holding Corp. for the period
ended June 30, 2012 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the
information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Aeroflex Holding Corp.



| | /s/ John Adamovich, Jr.
| | -----------------------
| |                        
| | Name:                  
| |                        
| | Date:                  



A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906 has been provided to Aeroflex Holding Corp. and will be retained by Aeroflex Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

Theundersigned officer of Courier Corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifiesthat the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 24,2005 to which this certification is attached (the “Report”), as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| * February 1, 2006* | * * | * *                                           | By: | *  s/Robert P. Story, Jr.* | * * |
|-------------------------------|----------|----------------------------------------------------|-----|-------------------------------------------|----------|
| Date                          |     | Robert P. Story, Jr.                          |
| ** **                    |     | Senior Vice President and  Chief Financial Officer |

 

This certification shall not be deemed “filed”for any purpose, nor shall it be deemed to be incorporated by reference intoany filing, under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of1934.

 

----
Exhibit 32
CERTIFICATION

We, Ronald W. Kaplan, President and Chief Executive Officer, and J. L.
Dickinson, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, of Continental Global
Group, Inc. (the "Company"), certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-
Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, that:

1.          The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the
            quarterly period ended September 30, 2006 (the "Report")
            fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of
            the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

/s/ Ronald W. Kaplan                        /s/ J. L. Dickinson
----------------------------------          -----------------------------------
Ronald W. Kaplan, President and             J. L. Dickinson, Vice President and
   Chief Executive Officer                      Chief Financial Officer

Dated:  November 14, 2006


This certification accompanies this Report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required
by such Act, be deemed filed by Continental Global Group, Inc. for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the "Exchange
Act"). Such certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference
into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange
Act, except to the extent that Continental Global Group, Inc. specifically
incorporates it by reference.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### The ZACK CO., a Florida corporation, d/b/a Miami Roofing & Sheet Metal Co., Appellant, v. ROBERT L. TURCHIN, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-150.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Dec. 19, 1972.

Friedman, Britton & Stettin, Orlando, and William H. Benson, Miami Shores, for appellant.

Richard P. Kenney, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL and HENDRY, JJ., and LILES, WOODIE W., Associate Judge.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, The Zack Co., brought suit against appellee originally in 1966. The first count of the complaint stated a cause of action for “open account.” The second stated a cause of action for “account stated,” and the third count for “goods, wares and merchandise sold and delivered.” During the course of the trial, the domicile of The Zack Co. become an issue. It was discovered that the corporation was an Illinois corporation and had no standing to bring suit in Florida. The cause was dismissed.

Subsequently, The Zack Co., a Florida corporation, brought suit on written contract. Defendant filed his motion for judgment on the pleadings and attached copies of the record in the prior suit. The trial *40judge granted the motion for judgment on the pleadings and this appeal ensued.

Appellant maintains that the former suit is not a bar to this action and we agree and reverse. This is a suit on a contract; this is a suit by a Florida corporation. The .other suit was brought by The Zack Co., an Illinois corporation. The other suit was on different grounds. Therefore, res judi-cata cannot apply simply for the reason there has been no ruling on the merits and the. parties are not the same. See Rankin v. State of Florida, 5 Cir. 1969, 418 F.2d 482; Wacaster v. Wacaster, Fla.App.1969, 220 So.2d 914.

Reversed and remanded for action consistent with this opinion.
2800 S. Andrews Avenue, Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33316 Phone: 954.320.5367 Fax: 305.423.3246 Email: jcanny@amerijet.com

April 30, 2013

Submitted electronically via regulations.gov

U.S. Department of Transportation

Docket Operations, M-30

West Building ground floor

Room W12-140

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E.

Washington D.C. 20590

Re: Amerijet International, Inc.- Exemption No. 9469B (FAA-2005-22192) 

Dear Sir or Madam:

The purpose of this letter is to request an extension of Exemption No. 9469B (FAA-2005-22192), 

which was last granted to Amerijet International, Inc. ("Amerijet'') on June 20, 2011.

Amerijet filed its initial Petition for an exemption from § 121.434(c)(l)(ii) of Title 14 on August 

18, 2005, to allow Amerijet to substitute a qualified and authorized check airman in place of an FAA 

inspector to observe a qualifying pilot in command (PIC) while that PIC is performing prescribed duties 

during at least one flight leg that includes a takeoff and a landing when completing initial or upgrade 

training as specified in§ 121.434. Amerijet's Petition was not opposed by any party and was approved by 

the FAA on September 15, 2005. Subsequent two-year extensions were approved on September 10, 

2007, September 2, 2009, and June 20, 2011. The current extension terminates September 30, 2013.

Amerijet has continued to use the exemption and has been able to realize the substantial benefits it 

anticipated when it first filed its petition in 2005. Moreover, use of the exemption has not resulted in any 

adverse consequences. In short, all of the public interest justifications Amerijet advanced in support of its 

Petition have been achieved, and it can reasonably be expected that each will continue to be achieved if 

the exemption is extended. In addition, the extension of the exception reasonably cannot be expected to 

diminish in any way the ability of the FAA to maintain the same level of safety oversight regarding 

Amerijet that it observes right now and under the rule from which the exemption has been granted.

Accordingly, Amerijet contends that it would be in the public interest, would not adversely affect safety 

but would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which Amerijet seeks 

the exemption, for the FAA to extend the exemption for another two years, subject to the same conditions 

previously imposed.

Respectfully submitted,

s/ Joan M. Canny_________

Joan M. Canny

Senior Vice President and General Counsel

Amerijet International, Inc.

cc: Mr. John M. Allen

Director, Flight Standards Service
LOST GENERATIONS?

BUILDING WEALTH AMONG AMERICANS

Signe-Mary McKernan

Caroline Ratcliffe

Eugene Steuerle

Sisi Zhang
-$100,000

$0

$100,000

$200,000

$300,000

$400,000

$500,000

$600,000

$700,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

1983

$248,462

2010

$496,536 

UP 101%

Wealth Inequality is Increasing 

SCF 1983-2010, 2010 dollars

All

Middle 20%

Lowest 20%
Older Generations Accumulate,

Younger Generations Stagnate

20–28

+5%

29–37

-21%

38–46

+26%

47–55

+76%

56–64

+120%

65–73

+79%

74 or older

+149%

Change in Average Net Worth 

Same Age Group, 1983–2010

Generation Y/X

Baby Boomers/Silent Generation
Lost Generations? 

Falling Behind Before Great Recession 

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010

56–64

65–73

74+

47–55

38–46

29–37

20–28

SCF 1983-2010, 2010 dollars

29–37
Lost Generations? A Look at Debt

Average Family Debt of 29- to 37-Year-Olds, Excluding Mortgage Debt

2010 dollars
Building Wealth Over a Lifetime
$0

$200,000

$400,000

$600,000

$800,000

$1,000,000

$1,200,000

$1,400,000

Some Not on Wealth Building Path 

Hispanic

30s and 40s 40s and 50s 50s and 60s

Average Family Wealth for Those Born 1943–51 by Race and Ethnicity

African American

White

2010 dollars
Where to Go From Here?

Where do we go from here?
Contact us

Urban Institute

2100 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 833-7200

Signe-Mary McKernan

SMckernan@urban.org

Caroline Ratcliffe

CRatcliffe@urban.org

www.urban.org/changing-wealth-americans

Eugene Steuerle

ESteuerle@urban.org
#### In re ESTATE of Mary HERNDON, Deceased.

No. 69-644.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Diane G. HOEMKE, Appellant, v. Herbert HOEMKE and Esther Hoemke, his wife, Appellees.

No. 77-837.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 17, 1978.

Rehearing Denied March 23, 1978.

*829John T. Blakely of Johnson, Blakely, Pope & Bokor, P. A., Clearwater, for appellant.

Norman Bie, Jr., Largo, for appellees.

RYDER, Judge.

Appellant, defendant below, appeals a final summary judgment of partition and argues the trial court erred in ordering a sale of alleged homestead property which was the subject of a prior divorce decree and by issuing a judgment upon a matter entirely outside the issues made by the pleadings.

While we believe partition of property under these circumstances may be proper and is not, in fact, barred by the Constitution, [see, *Tullis v.*Tullis, 342 So.2d 88 (Fla. 1st DCA 1977)], it is fundamental that a summary judgment based on matters entirely outside of the issues made by the pleadings cannot stand. *Chandler v. Chandler,*330 So.2d 778 (Fla. 1st DCA 1976), *Teta v. Teta,*297 So.2d 642 (Fla. 1st DCA 1974), and *Cortina v. Cortina,*98 So.2d 334 (Fla.1957). The trial court did, in fact, include in its final summary judgment a finding that subject property was encumbered by a mortgage and that such property should be sold subject to same. The mortgage had not been pleaded, thus, clearly the judgment cannot stand, therefore. The final judgment entered is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court, without prejudice to the parties, for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

REVERSED AND REMANDED.

BOARDMAN, C. J., and OTT, J., concur.
FISCAL DISCIPLINE = SPENDING RESTRAINT

December 11, 2002

The Federal government is responsible for providing its citizens with a finite set of essential

services. Nonetheless, the temptation for government spending to grow infinitely in size and scope 

is ever-present. Fiscal discipline requires policymakers to keep Federal spending under control, to

minimize the drain of resources from the private sector to the public sector.

Not only is spending restraint crucial for the fiscal health of the Federal government, but it is

essential for the economic health of the nation as a whole.

• As the following chart shows, periods of

high Federal spending on goods and services 

were, on balance, associated with periods of 

relatively lower private investment.

• This relationship is particularly keen for the 

last decade or so, when Federal spending

declined as a share of the gross domestic

product until about 2000 and then rose,

while private investment did the opposite. 

• This suggests that undisciplined Federal 

spending has a deleterious effect on private 

investment and the economy.

Limited Federal spending is the only true measure of fiscal discipline. As Milton Friedman, Nobel 

Laureate in economics teaches: “The whole of what government spends is extracted from the

community’s resources, not solely that part financed by what are called taxes.” A tax increase —

regarded by many as the ultimate act of fiscal discipline — merely substitutes one method of 

extracting resources from the private sector for another. 

• Extracting resources from the private sector dampens private investment, and this translates 

into lower productivity and fewer jobs. 

Taking money out of America’s hands and putting it into Washington’s is not fiscal discipline —

and acting as if it were threatens the future of the nation’s economy.

Treasury Office of Economic Policy

“More money spent in Washington means less money in the hands of 

American families and entrepreneurs, less money in the hands of risk-takers

and job creators. And if the Congress won't show spending restraint, I intend 

to enforce spending restraint.”

 President George W. Bush

55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 00

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

INVESTMENT AND FEDERAL SPENDING

Quarterly, Percent of GDP

Nonresidential

Fixed Investment Federal

Spending
#### Clemente LOPEZ and Johnnie Simmons, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 70-105.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Feb. 19, 1971.

Rehearing Denied March 24, 1971.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE> 21

                                                                  Exhibit 12


           AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)




                                                        Nine Months Ended
                                                          September 30,
                                                        2001          2000
                                                      (dollars in thousands)

Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $281,629      $303,221
  Interest expense                                     477,834       502,586
  Implicit interest in rents                            12,583        12,267

Total earnings                                        $772,046      $818,074


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $477,834      $502,586
  Implicit interest in rents                            12,583        12,267

Total fixed charges                                   $490,417      $514,853


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.57          1.59
## 1998 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

6-19-1998 

# Unit ed S t a t es v

. M uh a mm a d

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 97-5230

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o y ou for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1998 D e c i sion s b y a n a uthor i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no v a U niv e r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min

. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" U nit e d S t a t e s v

. M uh a mm a d " (1998). 1998 D e cisio n s . P ape r 144. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no v a . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1998/144

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

No. 97-5230 USA v. Muhammad
The following modifications have been made to t he Court's opinion issued on June 4, 1998 in the above-entitle d appeal and will appear as part of the final version of the opi nion:

1. Page 1, change the first name of counsel fo r appellant to "Lori".

Thank you for attending to these matters.

/s/ P. Dou glas Sisk, Clerk

June 19, 1998
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 1st QUARTER 2008

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO

4-WEEK AND 12/27 12/31 1/3 17.00 20.00 19.00 59.00 -3.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 1/3 1/7 1/10 15.00 19.00 18.00 54.00 -2.00

1/10 1/14 1/17 9.00 20.00 18.00 52.00 -5.00

1/17 1/22 1/24 15.00 21.00 19.00 49.00 6.00

1/24 1/28 1/31 22.00 23.00 21.00 54.00 12.00

1/31 2/4 2/7 27.00 24.00 21.00 53.00 19.00

2/7 2/11 2/14 30.00 24.00 21.00 46.00 29.00

2/14 2/19 2/21 30.00 24.00 21.00 52.00 23.00

2/21 2/25 2/28 30.00 24.00 21.00 63.00 12.00

2/28 3/3 3/6 30.00 24.00 21.00 65.00 10.00

3/6 3/10 3/13 30.00 24.00 21.00 66.00 9.00

3/13 3/17 3/20 30.00 22.00 19.00 64.00 7.00

3/20 3/24 3/27 25.00 22.00 19.00 63.00 3.00

860.00 740.00 120.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

31-DAY BILL 2/13 2/15 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 3/17

14-DAY BILL 2/28 3/3 20.00 20.00 0.00

Matures 3/17

0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 1/7 1/10 1/15 8.00 19.40 -11.40

20-Year TIPS 1/17 1/24 1/31 8.00

2-Year Note 1/24 1/28 1/31 24.00 2.00

5-Year Note 1/24 1/29 1/31 14.00 1.00 21.60 24.40

10-Year Note 1/30 2/6 2/15 14.00 1.00

30-Year Bond 1/30 2/7 2/15 9.00 54.60 -31.60

2-Year Note 2/25 2/27 2/29 25.00 1.00

5-year Note 2/25 2/28 2/29 15.00 1.00 21.80 18.20

10-Year Note - R 3/11 3/13 3/17 10.00 1.00 10.00

2-Year Note 3/24 3/26 3/31 25.00

5-year Note 3/24 3/27 3/31 15.00 20.20 19.80

167.00 137.60 29.40

Estimates are italicized

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 149.40

R = Reopening
#### WASHINGTON FEDERAL SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATION OF MIAMI BEACH, Petitioner, v. Fred O. DICKINSON, Jr., Comptroller of Florida, and Ex-Officio State Banking Commissioner, Respondent.

No. 44020.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 18, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 26, 1973.

Robert M. Ervin, F. Perry Odom and Thomas M. Ervin, Jr., of Ervin, Varn, Jacobs & Odom, Tallahassee, and Michael H. Salmon, of Courshon & Courshon, Mi-amia Beach, for petitioner.

Mallory H. Horton, of Horton & Perse, and Larry E. Levy, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before this Court on conflict certiorari granted to review the decision of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reported at 282 So.2d 168 (Fla.App., 1973).

The historical background, factual situation, and questions of law, and the decision sub judice appear in the opinion of the District Court of Appeal in this cause, and in the interest of brevity, will not be repeated here. We have heard oral argument, examined the record and considered the briefs and are of the opinion that the Third District Court of Appeal correctly decided the case, and their opinion is therefore adopted as the decision of this Court.

*168No error appearing, the writ of certio-rari heretofore issued is hereby discharged.

It is so ordered.

CARLTON, C. J., and ROBERTS, ADKINS, BOYD and McCAIN, JJ., concur.