alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65809]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32713]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 2188-030]


Montana Power Company; Notice of Intent To Hold Technical 
Modeling Workshop at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Oak Ridge, 
Tennessee to Discuss the Modeling of Thermal Impacts Associated With 
the Madison Development Part of the Missouri-Madison Hydroelectric 
Project Proposed for Relicensing

December 10, 1997.
    On January 22 and 23, 1998, a technical modeling workshop at Oak 
Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) in Oak Ridge, Tennessee will be 
conducted to discuss the modeling of thermal impacts associated with 
the Madison Development. The model was used to evaluate alternatives 
considered in Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) considering 
issuance of a new license for the Missouri Madison Project. The Notice 
of Availability of the DEIS appeared in the Federal Register on October 
3, 1997 (62 FR 51855).
    The workshop is scheduled as follows:

8:30 am-4:30 pm, January 22, Bldg. 1503, ORNL
8:30 am-12:00 pm, January 23, Bldg. 1503, ORNL

    Workshop attendees should contact: Mark Bevelhimer ((423) 576-0266 
or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#066b6475466974686a28616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6b0609182b04190507450c041d">[email protected]</span></a>) to confirm attendance and obtain lodging options and 
local directions to the workshop.
    Anyone wishing to submit questions or comments regarding the model 
of thermal impacts to discuss at the workshop should address them to: 
Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    Written correspondence should clearly show the following caption on 
the first page: Missouri-Madison Hydroelectric Project No. 2188-030.
    For further information, please contact Mr. R. Feller at (202) 219-
2796.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32713 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Ruth E. FEEMSTER, as Executrix under the Last Will and Testament of Robert M. Feemster, Deceased, Appellant, v. Marilyn Kay THAL, a free dealer, Biscayne Professional Building, Inc., a Florida corporation, and Sidney Pavilack, Appellees.

No. 70-205.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

March 13, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Exhibit 12   AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (Unaudited)    Three Months Ended March 31,(dollars in thousands)20092008Earnings:
Loss before provision (benefit) for income taxes$(237,138)$ (47,371)Interest expense268,407306,235Implicit interest in rents4,3985,558Total earnings$   35,667$264,422Fixed charges:
Interest expense$ 268,407$306,235Implicit interest in rents4,3985,558Total fixed charges$ 272,805$311,793Ratio of earnings to fixed charges*0.130.85  * Earnings were inadequate to cover total fixed charges by $237.1 million for the three months ended March 31, 2009 and $47.4 million for the three months ended March 31, 2008.    55
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

88 

CA 16-00414 

PRESENT: CARNI, J.P., LINDLEY, NEMOYER, TROUTMAN, AND SCUDDER, JJ. 

 

RICHARD WILLIAMSON, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

ANNE J. HODSON, AS EXECUTRIX OF THE ESTATE OF 

ROBERT P. HODSON, D.D.S., DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

TRONOLONE & SURGALLA, P.C., BUFFALO (RICHARD P. VALENTINE OF COUNSEL),

FOR PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT. 

ANSPACH MEEKS ELLENBERGER LLP, BUFFALO (DAVID M. STILLWELL OF

COUNSEL), FOR DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT. 

 

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Erie County (John M.

Curran, J.), entered December 14, 2015. The judgment was entered upon

a jury verdict in defendant’s favor. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the judgment so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Plaintiff commenced this action to recover for

damages for injuries that he allegedly sustained as a result of

decedent’s dental malpractice. On appeal from a judgment entered upon

a jury verdict in defendant’s favor, plaintiff contends that Supreme

Court erred in denying his motion for judgment as a matter of law

pursuant to CPLR 4401. We reject that contention. Given the

conflicting testimony of the parties’ experts, we conclude that it

cannot be said that there is “ ‘no valid line of reasoning and

permissible inferences which could possibly lead rational [persons] to

the conclusion [advocated by the nonmovant] on the basis of the

evidence presented at trial’ ” (Szczerbiak v Pilat, 90 NY2d 553, 556,

quoting Cohen v Hallmark Cards, 45 NY2d 493, 499).

Plaintiff further contends that the court erred in failing to

grant his posttrial motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the

verdict as against the weight of the evidence and for a new trial. We

conclude that plaintiff’s contention is not properly before us

inasmuch as he abandoned that contention at oral argument of his

motion (see Webb v Salvation Army, 83 AD3d 1453, 1453; see generally

Ciesinski v Town of Aurora, 202 AD2d 984, 985). Here, the record

establishes that plaintiff’s counsel responded in the affirmative when

the court at oral argument asked whether plaintiff was requesting that

the court direct entry of judgment in his favor on the issue of

negligence and was “not asking for a new trial on the question of
-2- 88 

CA 16-00414 

negligence,” i.e., the appropriate relief when a jury verdict is set

aside as against the weight of the evidence (see Rogers v DiChristina,

195 AD2d 1061, 1062, lv denied 82 NY2d 852). In any event,

plaintiff’s contention lacks merit inasmuch as “ ‘the trial was a

prototypical battle of the experts, and the jury’s acceptance of

[defendant’s] case was a rational and fair interpretation of the

evidence’ ” (Schultz v Excelsior Orthopaedics, LLP [appeal No. 2], 129

AD3d 1606, 1607).

Entered: February 10, 2017 Frances E. Cafarell

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                                  <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                        12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                  JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                     JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                       JAN-02-1999
<CASH>                                                  14,000
<SECURITIES>                                                 0
<RECEIVABLES>                                          498,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                 0
<INVENTORY>                                          1,979,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       100,000
<PP&E>                                               9,657,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                       3,876,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       8,843,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                3,062,000
<BONDS>                                                      0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                        0
<PREFERRED>                                                  0
<COMMON>                                            10,857,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                   0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         8,843,000
<SALES>                                             13,612,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                    13,612,000
<CGS>                                                9,631,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        9,631,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      (319,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                             0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     601,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     (3,025,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                            31,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                          0
<DISCONTINUED>                                               0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                              0
<CHANGES>                                                    0
<NET-INCOME>                                        (3,056,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                            (2.55)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            (2.55)
        


</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6291-6292]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3277]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2925]


California; Declaration of Disaster Loan Area, (Amendment #1)

    In accordance with a notice from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, dated January 24, 1997, the above-numbered Declaration is 
hereby amended to include Alameda and San Francisco Counties in the 
State of California, as well as the City of Morgan Hill which was 
previously omitted as a disaster area due to damages caused by severe 
storms, flooding, and mud and land slides beginning on December 28, 
1996 and continuing.
    All counties contiguous to the above-named counties have been 
previously declared.
    All other information remains the same, i.e., the termination date 
for filing

[[Page 6292]]

applications for physical damage is March 5, 1997, and for loans for 
economic injury the deadline is October 6, 1997.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008.)

    Dated: January 30, 1997.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 97-3277 Filed 2-10-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
#### Kenneth Lamar STRINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-195.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District."

Nov. 7, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

              
       
<S>                                <C>                 <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                      YEAR                YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                  JUN-30-1997         JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                     JUL-01-1996         JUL-01-1995                 
<PERIOD-END>                       JUN-30-1997         JUN-30-1996    
<CASH>                                   8,790             462,971                  
<SECURITIES>                                 0                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                          592,251           1,050,362                           
<ALLOWANCES>                                 0              53,788
<INVENTORY>                            120,472           1,000,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             0                   0                         
<PP&E>                                       0                   0                           
<DEPRECIATION>                               0                   0                        
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                         739,511           2,488,458                            
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                2,965,416           5,237,271       
<BONDS>                                      0                   0 
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        0                   0
<PREFERRED>                                  0                   0
<COMMON>                                32,796              25,913                          
<OTHER-SE>                          (2,258,701)                  0                              
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>           739,511           2,488,458                           
<SALES>                                141,202           1,010,826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     2,404,303           1,012,069                           
<CGS>                                  565,610           1,046,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        2,244,060           5,874,084                     
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             0                   0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             0                   0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                      91,435              97,701                        
<INCOME-PRETAX>                         68,808          (4,959,716)                 
<INCOME-TAX>                                 0                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                     68,808          (4,959,716)                     
<DISCONTINUED>                               0                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              0                   0
<CHANGES>                                    0                   0
<NET-INCOME>                            68,808          (4,959,716)                      
<EPS-PRIMARY>                              .02               (2.17)                        
<EPS-DILUTED>                              .02               (2.17)                          
        



</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT

TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

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 officers of Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. (the Company), does hereby certify with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 28, 2008, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-Q Report), that:



| | (1) | the 10-Q Report fully complies with the requirements of Sections 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | the information contained in the 10-Q Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The undersigned have executed this Certification effective as August 12, 2008.



/s/ Cathy B. TaylorCathy B. TaylorPresident and Chief Executive Officer/s/ Scott SporrerScott SporrerInterim Chief Financial Officer & Treasurer


A signed original of this Certification has been provided to Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and will be
retained by Phoenix Footwear Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 4th QUARTER 2009

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 9/24 9/28 10/1 30.00 32.00 32.00 86.00 8.00

3&6 MONTH BILLS 10/1 10/5 10/8 35.00 32.00 32.00 79.00 20.00

10/8 10/12 10/15 35.00 32.00 32.00 74.00 25.00

10/15 10/19 10/22 35.00 32.00 32.00 28.00 95.00 32.00

10/22 10/26 10/29 35.00 32.00 32.00 90.00 9.00

10/29 11/2 11/5 35.00 32.00 32.00 94.00 5.00

11/5 11/9 11/12 35.00 32.00 32.00 95.00 4.00

11/12 11/16 11/19 35.00 34.00 32.00 28.00 117.00 12.00

11/19 11/23 11/25 35.00 34.00 32.00 96.00 5.00

11/25 11/30 12/3 35.00 34.00 32.00 97.00 4.00

12/3 12/7 12/10 35.00 34.00 32.00 97.00 4.00

12/10 12/14 12/17 22.00 32.00 32.00 28.00 118.00 -4.00

12/17 12/21 12/24 22.00 32.00 32.00 96.00 -10.00

1264.00 1234.00 114.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

70-DAY BILL 30.00 -30.00

Matures 10/8

70-DAY BILL 10/7 10/8 30.00 30.00 0.00

Matures 12/17

70-DAY BILL 35.00 -35.00

Matures 10/15

70-DAY BILL 10/14 10/15 35.00 35.00 0.00

Matures 12/24

70-DAY BILL 35.00 -35.00

Matures 10/22

70-DAY BILL 10/21 10/22 35.00 35.00 0.00

Matures 12/31

20-DAY BILL 11/23 11/24 25.00 25.00 0.00

Matures 12/15

13 DAY - BILL 12/1 12/2 20 00 . 20 00 . 0 00 .

Matures 12/15

70-DAY BILL 12/16 12/17 30.00 30.00

Matures 2/25/2010

71-DAY BILL 12/22 12/23 35.00 35.00

Matures 3/4/2010

71-DAY BILL 12/29 12/30 35.00 35.00

Matures 3/11/2010

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

IN SIZE

10-Year TIPS 10/1 10/5 10/15 7.00 1.00

3-Year Note 10/1 10/6 10/15 39.00 2.00

10-Year Note ® 10/1 10/7 10/15 20.00

30-Year Note ® 10/1 10/8 10/15 12.00 14.40 63.60

5-Year TIPS ® 10/22 10/26 10/30 6.00 6.00

2-Year Note 10/22 10/27 11/2 45.00 1.00

5-Year Note 10/22 10/28 11/2 42.00 1.00

7-Year Note 10/22 10/29 11/2 31.00 1.00 21.00 103.00

3-Year Note 11/4 11/11 11/16 40.00 1.00

10-Year Note 11/4 11/12 11/16 25.00 1.00

30-Year Bond 11/4 11/13 11/16 16.00 1.00 60.90 20.10

2-Year Note 11/18 11/23 11/30 45.00

5-year Note 11/18 11/24 11/30 43.00 1.00

7-year Note 11/18 11/25 11/30 32.00 1.00 19.00 101.00

3-Year Note 9/3 9/8 12/15 40.00

10-Year Note ® 9/3 9/9 12/15 21.00 1.00

30-Year Note ® 9/3 9/10 12/15 13.00 1.00 14.90 59.10

2-Year Note 9/17 9/22 12/31 45.00

5-year Note 9/17 9/23 12/31 44.00 1.00

7-year Note 9/17 9/24 12/31 33.00 1.00 20.00 102.00

566.00 130.20 454.80

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 568.80
**D RAFT**  **February 3** **, 2015 Pre**  **- Meeting Materials for the EPA** **- FLM**  **- RPO**  **- States**  **- Tribes**  **Meeting**

**on the Future of the Regional Haze Program**

1 

### DRAFT **AGENDA EPA** **- FLM**  **- RPO**  **- States** **- Tribes**  **Meeting on the Future of the Regional Haze Program**  **March 3 –**  **4, 2015 EPA Campus**  **Research Triangle Park, NC Purpose of meeting: For R** **egional P**  **lanning O**  **rganization s**  **(RPOs), states** **, and tribes to**  **provide EPA**  **feedback on topics related to the planned Regional Haze Rule (RHR) revisions and**  **guidance. F**  **eedback will be used to develop options for**  **EPA to consider for planned rule**  **revisions and guidance documents. The Federal Land Managers (FLMs) will be present to**  **listen to feedback directly. Day 1**  **Start Time: 9 :00 AM**  **(To be discussed) Introductions**  **Review Purpose, Format, Facilitation,**  **and Ground Rules for the Meeting Discussion of Topics**  **Related to Rulemaking t o Revising**  **the RHR** I
. Due Date for Second Planning Period SIPs (30 minutes) 1 A. Implications for interstate consultation II
. Progress Reports (~1.5 hours) A. Burden on the states if progress reports must be SIP revisions B. How many progress reports and when? C. Content of progress reports and procedures for developing and submitting them to EPA D. EPA review of progress reports **Lunch in Cafeteria Discussion of Topics Related to New Guidance**  III
. Uniform Rate of Progress ( URP ) and Reasonable Progress Goal ( RPG ) Framework (~1.5 hours) A. Addressing the impact of natural events B. No n - U.S. anthropogenic emissions C. Re
- estimating natural conditions

1 Times indicated will be refined b ased on pre

- meeting discussions. The facilitator will have discretion to subdivide time among subtopics and to extend or close off discussion of particular topics, based on the demonstrated level of interest and likely utility of further discussion.**D RAFT**  **February 3** **, 2015 Pre**  **- Meeting Materials for the EPA** **- FLM**  **- RPO**  **- States**  **- Tribes**  **Meeting**

**on the Future of the Regional Haze Program**

2 D. Translating the long term strategy into reasonable progress goals E. Consistency across the RPG framework

**Day 2 Start Time: 8:30 AM**  **(To be discussed) Discussion of Topics Related to New Guidance** **, continued** IV
. Reasonable Progress and Long Term Strategy (3.5 hours) A. Determining cross
- state impacts B. Linkage between the URP and the determination of whether the long term strategy provides reasonable progress C. T i ering (or s creening out ) sources for the four factor analysis D. The four factor analysis E. Consideration of visibility impacts F. Smaller point sour ces, area sources, and mobile sources **Lunch in Cafeteria Discussion of**  **Parking Lot Topics**  **If Any Wrap Up: Action Items and Next Steps** 

 Opportunity to submit additional written input  I dentify any i mmediate information needs of RPOs, states, and tribes  Next steps, including forums for more in depth discussions of technical issues **Adjourn –**  **3:00 PM (To be discussed)**
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-13-00710-CR

Johnny Wayne Sheffield Jr.

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

36th District Court of Aransas County, Texas

Trial Cause No. A-13-5111-CR

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court 

orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

October 16, 2014
#### Betty Jane DWYER, Appellant, v. Edward J. DWYER, Appellee.

No. S-14.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 16, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

Interlocutory appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67088]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33380]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


Center for Scientific Review; Notice of Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
Center for Scientific Review Special Emphasis Panel (SEP) meetings:
    Purpose/Agenda: To review individual grant applications.
    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: January 5, 1998.
    Time: 2:00 p.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 4152, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Marcelina Powers, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1720.

    Name of SEP: Biological and Physiological Sciences.
    Date: January 8, 1998
    Time: 10:00 a.m.
    Place: NIH, Rockledge 2, Room 4152, Telephone Conference.
    Contact Person: Dr. Marcelina Powers, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4152, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1720.

    Name of SEP: Multidisciplinary Sciences.
    Date: March 9-10, 1998.
    Time: 8:00 a.m.
    Place: Woodfin Suites, Rockville, Maryland.
    Contact Person: Dr. Nadarajen Vydelingum, Scientific Review 
Administrator, 6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 5210, Bethesda, Maryland 
20892, (301) 435-1176.

    Name of SEP: Microbiological and Immunological Sciences.
    Date: March 19-20, 1998.
    Time: 8:30 a.m.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Bethesda, Maryland.
    Contact Person: Dr. Jean Hickman, Scientific Review Administrator, 
6701 Rockledge Drive, Room 4178, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, (301) 435-
1146.
    The meetings will be closed in accordance with the provisions set 
forth in secs. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. Applications 
and/or proposals and the discussions could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and personal 
information concerning individuals associated with the applications 
and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly 
unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.306, 93.333, 
93.337, 93.393-93.396, 93.837-93.844, 93.846-93.878, 93.892, 93.893, 
National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: December 15, 1997.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 97-33380 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M