alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67044]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33467]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board
[Order No. 941]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 29 (Louisville, Kentucky) and 
Approval for Manufacturing Authority (Military Ordnance)

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade Zones Board 
(the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, an application from the Louisville and Jefferson County 
Riverport Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade Zone 29, Louisville, 
Kentucky, for authority to expand FTZ 29 to include additional sites 
and for authority to manufacture/refurbish military ordnance under FTZ 
procedures within FTZ 29, was filed by the Board on September 26, 1996 
(FTZ Docket 71-96, 61 FR 52909, 10/9/96);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register and the application has been processed pursuant to the FTZ Act 
and the Board's regulations; and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 29 and for authority to manufacture 
military ordnance under FTZ procedures is approved, subject to the Act 
and the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 15th day of December 1997.
Robert S. LaRussa,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.

    Attest:
John J. Da Ponte, Jr.,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-33467 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2550 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2550

To require GAO review of certain TSA screening protocols, and for other 
                               purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 15, 2021

   Mr. Taylor (for himself and Miss Rice of New York) introduced the 
    following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Homeland 
                                Security

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require GAO review of certain TSA screening protocols, 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. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Traveling Parents Screening 
Consistency Act of 2021''.

SEC. 2. COMPTROLLER GENERAL REVIEW.

    Not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this Act, 
the Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a review of 
the Transportation Security Administration's (TSA) implementation of 
the Bottles and Breastfeeding Equipment Screening Act (Public Law 114-
293), as well as the effectiveness of TSA in ensuring screening 
protocol clarity and screening consistency relating to the screening of 
formula, breast milk, purified deionized water for infants, and juice. 
Such review shall include the following:
            (1) Consider whether TSA effectively manages consistency of 
        screening protocol applications for formula, breastmilk, 
        purified deionized water for infants, and juice.
            (2) Evaluate the need for TSA to update and revise 
        procedures for such screening.
            (3) Assess whether TSA effectively tracks passenger 
        complaints related to such screening to monitor trends and 
        identify inconsistencies.
            (4) Evaluate TSA's communications and information sharing 
        practices for passengers, air carriers, and airports relating 
        to screening protocols for such screening.
            (5) Evaluate TSA's policies regarding the screening of 
        passengers with nursing products, including the extent to which 
        such passengers are more likely to receive secondary screening.
            (6) Make recommendations for improving TSA's overall 
        screening practices relating to such screening.
                                 <all>
```
#### TALQUIN ELECTRIC CO-OPERATIVE, Inc., et al., Petitioners, v. Elmer BOYETTE et al., Respondents.

No. 40547.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Feb. 15, 1971.

Certiorari denied. 233 So.2d 388.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and DEKLE, JJ., concur.
Patrick N. Bergt 

Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. 

821 N Street, Suite 208 

Anchorage, AK 99501 

(907) 277-8001 

Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc. 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

In the matter of: ) 

) FAA Case No. 2013AL030106 

Redemption Air, Inc. ) Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

______________ ) (Civil Penalty Action) 

STATE OF ALASKA ) 

) ss. 

THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) 

AFFIDAVIT OF PATRICKN. BERGT 

I, Patrick N. Bergt, state under oath that: 

1. I am an associate attorney at the Law Office of Brent R. Cole, P.C. ("Firm") 

attorneys of record for Redemption Air, Inc. ("Redemption Air") in the abovecaptioned matter. 

2. I am familiar with the costs and expenses incurred by Redemption Air in 

preparation for Christina Bryant's ("Ms. Bryant") deposition. I am also familiar 

with the attorney time spent preparing the motion to compel, the memorandum in 

support of the motion, and the proposed order. 

3. To date, Redemption Air has incurred the following costs, expense, or fees 

associated with Ms. Bryant's deposition: 

Affidavit of Patrick N. bergt 

In re: Redemption Air, Inc., Docket No. FAA-2014-0115 

Page 1 of3 
a. $54.00 owed to Computer Matric Court Reporters, LLC for its attendance 

at the time and place scheduled for the deposition Ms. Bryant failed to 

appear for. 

b. Mr. Cole billed .5 hours, or $125, to the client for his preparation of the 

deposition that Ms. Bryant failed to appear for. 

c. Mr. Cole billed .6 hours, or $250, and I billed 4.75 hours, or $831.25, to the 

client for research and drafting of the motion to compel, the memorandum 

in support of the motion, the proposed order, and this affidavit. 

DATED this3/ ~of December, 2014, at Anchorage, Alaska. 

Affidavit of Patrick N. bergt 

LAW OFFICE OF BRENT R. COLE, P.C. 

Attorneys for Redemption Air, Inc. 

In re: Redemption Air, Inc., Docket No. F AA-2014-0115 

Page 2 of3 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

This is to certify that on this "<..(..;:::,day of December, 

2014, a true and correct copy¥thef"oregoing document 

was 

SMailed 

0 Hand-delivered 

ti(Faxed 

to the following: 

Original and one copy: 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W1 000 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

One copy: 

Craig Wm. Black, Esq. 

Office of the Regional Counsel 

222 West 7th Avenue, #14 

Anchorage, AK 99513-7587 

Craig.Black@faa.gov 

Fax: 271-2800 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law 

Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (E11-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

Richard.Goodwin@dot.gov 

Fax: 202-366-7536 

Affidavit of Patrick N. bergt 

In re: Redemption Air, Inc., Docket No. F AA-20 14-0115 

Page 3 of3
Exhibit 31.4
 Certification of Chief Financial Officer pursuant to Exchange Act Rules 13a-14
and 15d-14, as adopted pursuant to Section 302 of Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 on Form 10-K/A of Idera Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material
fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report.
 Date: October 9, 2009
    /s/ Louis J. Arcudi, IIILouis J. Arcudi, IIIChief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Each of the undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of KSwiss Inc. (the Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:



| |  |  | The Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 the Company.
| | - |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: February 18, 2010



|                       |  |                                      
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                      
|/S/     STEVEN NICHOLS
|NAME:                  |  | Steven Nichols                       
|TITLE:                 |  | President and Chief Executive Officer



|                       |  |                                                                                    
|---------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                      
|/S/     GEORGE POWLICK
|NAME:                  |  | George Powlick                                                                     
|TITLE:                 |  | Vice President of Finance, Chief Administrative Officer and Chief Financial Officer
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2277 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a Federal court to consider 

certain factors in imposing a sentence on a caretaker, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 29, 2021 

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

Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

To amend title 18, United States Code, to require a Federal 

court to consider certain factors in imposing a sentence 

on a caretaker, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community-Based 

5 Sentencing Alternatives for Caretakers Act of 2021’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN IMPOSING A SEN7 TENCE ON A PRIMARY CARETAKER. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3553 of title 18, United 

9 States Code, is amended— 

10 (1) in subsection (a)— 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2277 IH

1 (A) in paragraph (6), by striking ‘‘; and’’ 

2 and inserting a semicolon; 

3 (B) in paragraph (7), by striking the pe4 riod at the end and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

5 (C) by adding at the end the following new 

6 paragraph: 

7 ‘‘(8) a community-based alternative sentence for 

8 a defendant if— 

9 ‘‘(A) such defendant is a caretaker; and 

10 ‘‘(B) the particular sentence to be imposed 

11 is for an offense that is not a violent offense 

12 under subsection (g).’’; and 

13 (2) by adding at the end the following new sub14 section: 

15 ‘‘(h) DEFINITIONS.—In this section: 

16 ‘‘(1) COMMUNITY-BASED ALTERNATIVE SEN17 TENCE.— 

18 ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—The term ‘community19 based alternative sentence’ means a sentence 

20 that may require the defendant to complete or 

21 participate in community-based programming, 

22 counseling, or other treatment or programming, 

23 as ordered by the court. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 2277 IH

1 ‘‘(B) TYPES OF TREATMENT.—Commu2 nity-based programming, counseling, or other 

3 treatment, includes— 

4 ‘‘(i) drug counseling, treatment, or re5 habilitation programing; 

6 ‘‘(ii) alcohol counseling, treatment, or 

7 rehabilitation programing; 

8 ‘‘(iii) individual or family counseling; 

9 ‘‘(iv) family case management serv10 ices; 

11 ‘‘(v) job training and job placement 

12 programing; 

13 ‘‘(vi) educational programming; or 

14 ‘‘(vii) any other treatment or pro15 gramming determined to be appropriate by 

16 the court. 

17 ‘‘(2) CARETAKER.—The term ‘caretaker’ means 

18 an individual who has consistently assumed substan19 tial responsibility for the housing, health, and safety 

20 of a child, parent, or other immediate family mem21 ber, including an adult child or family member with 

22 a disability, of such defendant.’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
4 

•HR 2277 IH

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) shall take effect on the date that is 90 days 

3 after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
#### Dwight Erickson MOSS, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-893.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 24, 1973.

Phillip A. Hubbart, Public Defender, and Lewis S. Kimler, Asst. Public Defender, for appellee.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Arnold R. Ginsberg, Asst. Atty. Gen., for ap-pellee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Smith v. Hinckley, 98 Fla. 132, 123 So. 564; Nelson v. State, 99 Fla. 1032, 128 So. 1; Morris v. State, 100 Fla. 850, 130 So. 582; Simpson v. State, Fla.App.1968, 211 So.2d 862; Matera v. State, Fla.App.1968, 218 So.2d 180; State ex rel. Butler v. Cullen, Fla.1971, 253 So.2d 861; § 924.33, Fla.Stat., F.S.A.
#### Bruce GRAMALDI, a/k/a Bruce Thomas Rush, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-940.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

April 13, 1973.

Daniel K. Schaffner, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Frank B. Kessler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed on the authority of State ex rel. Hardy v. Blount, 261 So.2d 172 (Fla.1972); Anderson v. State, 241 So.2d 390 (Fla.1970); Conner v. State, 253 So.2d 160 (2nd D.C.A.Fla.1971); Harrison v. Wainwright, 243 So.2d 427 (1st D.C.A.Fla.1971).

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and McNULTY, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                  STATEMENT OF SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT - FINANCE
         PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE

      Pursuant to Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code, I, Harry
M. Rimmer, the Senior Vice President - Finance of Escalon Medical Corp. (the
"Company"), hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

      1.    The Company's Form 10-K Annual Report for the year ended June 30,
            2004 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section
            13(a) of the Securities Act of 1934; and

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

Date: September 28, 2004                    /s/  Harry M. Rimmer
                                            --------------------
                                            Harry M. Rimmer
                                            Senior Vice President - Finance

      A signed copy of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Escalon and will be retained by
Escalon and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff
upon request.

                                       27
#### Don L. BALLEW and Paul R. Daly, Appellants, v. SOUTH FLORIDA BUSINESS NEGOTIATORS, INC., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 72-1278.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Nov. 9, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
(2011). "[We] review[ ] findings of fact for clear error but thefl legal 

consequences of those facts involve questions of law that we review de 

novo." State v. Beckman, 129 Nev. „ 305 P.3d 912, 916 (2013). 

Additionally, we review the constitutionality of a statute de novo. State v. 

Hughes, 127 Nev. „ 261 P.3d 1067, 1069 (2011). 

We have recently held that the warrantless, nonconsensual 

search provided for in NRS 484C.160(7) is unconstitutional. Byars v. 

State, Nev. , P.3d (Adv. Op. No. 85, October 16, 2014). 

However, we concluded that the good-faith exception to the exclusionary 

remedy applies and exclusion is not mandated when an officer "relied in 

good faith on the constitutional validity of NRS 484C.160, and such 

reliance appears reasonable." Id. at , P.3d at , slip op. at 14. 

Here, the district court found that the officers' reliance on the statute was 

objectively reasonable and the exclusionary rule did not apply. Nothing in 

the record suggests that the district court's factual findings are clearly 

erroneous, and we conclude that the district court did not err by denying 

Repinec's motion to suppress the blood evidence. 

Accordingly, we 

ORDER the judgment of conviction AFFIRMED. 

Douglas 

taz-tm 

Hardesty 

)0,074 

, J. 

, J. 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 2 

(0) 1941A 
cc: Hon. Steve L. Dobrescu, District Judge 

State Public Defender/Ely 

Attorney General/Carson City 

White Pine County District Attorney 

White Pine County Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) I947A 

i4P„ip,W.1 

3
#### George STEINC, Jr., Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-533.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 28, 1973.

Robert E. Jagger, Public Defender, and Karl B. Grube, Asst. Public Defender, Clearwater, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See, Barker v. Wingo (1972), 407 U.S. 514, 92 S.Ct. 2182, 33 L.Ed.2d 101.

LILES, A. C. J., and HOBSON and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
#### Samuel JOHNSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. R-79.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

March 22, 1973.

Samuel Johnson, in pro. per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., and Wallace E. Allbritton, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

The briefs and the record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the order of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD, K., Acting C. J., and WIGGINTON and RAULS, JJ., concur.
#### Michael B. SMALL and Ann S. Small, his wife, Appellants, v. TOMASELLO, INC., Appellee.

No. 76-1276.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 21, 1978.

Philip J. Gouze of Law Offices of Michael B. Small, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

*870Larry Klein, and George S. Okell, Jr., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

SCHWARTZ, ALAN R., Associate Judge.

The appellants-homeowners’ terrazzo floor was allegedly cracked and damaged immediately upon the appellee-exterminator’s activity in drilling holes to inject poison in a concrete slab adjacent to the home. The only significant point on this appeal from a judgment entered after a jury verdict for the exterminator challenges the trial judge’s refusal to give the standard jury instruction, 4.6, on res ipsa loquitur. We have determined that the charge was properly declined and therefore affirm the judgment below on the basis of our conclusion that the circumstances of the incident in question do not reflect that “the occasion would not [in the ordinary course of events] have occurred in the absence of negligence, *“Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. v. Hughes Supply, Inc.,*336 So.2d 1221, 1223 (Fla. 4th DCA 1976), and that the res ipsa doctrine is therefore inapplicable. Cf. *Stanolind Oil & Gas Co. v. Lambert,*222 S.W.2d 125, 126 (Tex.Civ.App.1949); *V. N. Green & Co. v. Thomas,*205 Va. 903, 140 S.E.2d 635 (1965); *Coalite, Inc. v. Aldridge,*285 Ala. 137, 229 So.2d 539 (1969).

Affirmed.

ANSTEAD and MOORE, JJ., concur.
#### Milton J. HARRIS, Appellant, v. ATICO FINANCIAL CORP., a Florida corporation, Appellee.

No. 69-579.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Feb. 3, 1970.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 18, 1970.

Hylan H. Kout, Miami Beach, for appellant.

Smathers & Thompson, and Cromwell A. Anderson, Miami, for appellee.

Before PEARSON, C. J., and BARK-DULL and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a summary final judgment for the defendant in an action brought by the plaintiff-appellant to recover a claimed broker’s commission for the sale of securities. After an examination of the record in the light of the briefs and oral argument we hold that the trial judge correctly determined there was no genuine issue of material fact and that the appellee was entitled to a judgment under the law as set forth in Shuler v. Allen, Fla. 1955, 76 So.2d 879.

Affirmed.