alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 67013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33250]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Part 52

[PS-158-86]
RIN 1545-AJ23


Petroleum Tax Imposed on Natural Gasoline

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: This document withdraws a proposed regulation relating to the 
petroleum tax imposed on natural gasoline. The withdrawal affects 
persons that produce natural gasoline at fractionation facilities or 
receive natural gasoline produced at those facilities.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ruth Hoffman, (202) 622-3130 (not a 
toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Section 4611 imposed a tax on crude oil (including natural 
gasoline) received at a United States refinery. On April 26, 1993, a 
notice of proposed rulemaking (PS-158-86) relating to this tax was 
published in the Federal Register (58 FR 21963). The proposed 
regulation treats any facility that produces natural gasoline by 
fractionation or similar operation as a United States refinery. Under 
this rule, tax would be imposed on natural gasoline when it is produced 
from natural gas liquids at a fractionation facility.
    Since the publication of the proposed regulation, the tax imposed 
by section 4611 has expired. Because tax is not currently imposed under 
section 4611, the proposed regulation is being withdrawn. For purposes 
of section 4611 prior to its expiration, the IRS will follow the result 
in Enron Gas Processing Co. v. United States, 96-1 USTC para. 70,058 
(S.D. Tex. 1996), in all cases involving substantially similar facts. 
In Enron, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas 
held that fractionation facilities are not United States refineries.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 52

    Chemicals, Excise taxes, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

Withdrawal of Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    Accordingly, under the authority of 26 U.S.C. 7805, the notice of 
proposed rulemaking that was published in the Federal Register on April 
26, 1993 (58 FR 21963) is withdrawn.
Michael P. Dolan,
Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 97-33250 Filed 12-22-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Arthur WEBB, Jr.

No. 61484.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 10, 1978.

In re: Arthur Webb, Jr. applying for writ of certiorari and habeas corpus. Parish of Pointe Coupee.

Writ denied.
#### Antonia DEUTSCH and Juan Deutsch, Appellants, v. Ann LAXSON et al., Appellees.

No. 73-715.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 5, 1974.

Rehearing Denied March 6, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2548 

To enact as law certain regulations relating to the taking of double-crested 

cormorants. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 15, 2021 

Mr. GUEST (for himself and Mr. CRAWFORD) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To enact as law certain regulations relating to the taking 

of double-crested cormorants. 

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 ‘‘Cormorant Relief Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. REGULATIONS RELATING TO THE TAKING OF DOU6 BLE-CRESTED CORMORANTS. 

7 (a) FORCE AND EFFECT.— 

8 (1) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subsection (b), 

9 sections 21.47 and 21.48 of title 50, Code of FedVerDate Sep 11 2014 02:57 Jun 05, 2021 Jkt 019200 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H2548.IH H2548

kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2548 IH

1 eral Regulations (as in effect on January 1, 2016), 

2 shall have the force and effect of law. 

3 (2) PUBLIC NOTICE.—The Secretary of the In4 terior, acting through the Director of the United 

5 States Fish and Wildlife Service (referred to in this 

6 section as the ‘‘Secretary’’), shall notify the public of 

7 the authority provided by paragraph (1) in a manner 

8 determined to be appropriate by the Secretary. 

9 (b) SUNSET.—The authority provided by subsection 

10 (a)(1) shall terminate on the effective date of a regulation 

11 promulgated by the Secretary after the date of enactment 

12 of this Act to control depredation of double-crested cor13 morant populations. 

14 (c) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this sec15 tion limits the authority of the Secretary to promulgate 

16 regulations relating to the taking of double-crested cor17 morants under any other law. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 4.1

<TABLE>
<S>     <C>
                            INGEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

              INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF GEORGIA
               AUTHORIZED: 50,000,000 COMMON SHARES, NO PAR VALUE
                   10,000,000 PREFERRED SHARES, NO PAR VALUE

                                                        SEE REVERSE FOR
                                                      CERTAIN DEFINITIONS.
                                                       -----------------
                                                       CUSIP 45684G 10 2
                                                       -----------------
------                                                                          ------
NUMBER          This Certifies That                                             SHARES
 3088
------                                                                          ------
                Is the owner of


       FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF COMMON STOCK, NO PAR VALUE

                            INGEN TECHNOLOGIES, INC.

        transferable only on the books of the Corporation by the hoder
        hereof in person or by duly authorized attorney upon surrender
        of this Certificate properly endorsed. This certificate is not
        valid until countersigned and registered by the Transfer Agent
        and Registrar.

           IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Corporation has caused this Certificate
        to be signed by the facsimile signatures of its duly authorized
        officers and to be sealed with the facsimile seal of the Corporation.


Dated:


CEO & CHAIRMAN

                              [SEAL HERE]


SECRETARY                            COUNTERSIGNED:

                                     Executive Registrar & Transfer, Inc., (303) 783-9055
                                     3615 South Huron Street, Suite 104, Englewood, CO 80110

                                     By:  _______________________________
                                          Transfer Agent & Registrar - Authorized Signature

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 11.2

| thousands,      except share and per share data       |   | 12      Weeks Ended |        |   | 24      Weeks Ended |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|---------------------|-------------|--------|---------------------|--------|
|                                                  |   | July      19, 2008  |        |   | July      21, 2007  |   |   | July      19, 2008 |   |   | July      21, 2007 |   |
|                                                  |   |                |        |   | (Restated)          |   |   |   |   |   | (Restated) |   |
| Basic:                                                |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      loss applicable to common shares             |   | $                   | (3,601      | )      |                | $      | (4,601 | ) |   | $ | (3,857 | ) |   | $ | (2,046 | ) |
|                                                  |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Shares:                                               |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average number of common and            |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| common      equivalent shares outstanding             |   |                | 17,063,381  |   |                |   | 17,005,685 |   |   |   | 17,054,575 |   |   |   | 16,993,715 |   |
| Less:      Treasury stock - weighted average          |   |                | (10,595,319 | )      |                |   | (10,619,570 | ) |   |   | (10,595,319 | ) |   |   | (10,618,935 | ) |
|                                                  |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Weighted      average number of common and common     |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| equivalent      shares outstanding                    |   |                | 6,468,062   |   |                |   | 6,386,115 |   |   |   | 6,459,256 |   |   |   | 6,374,780 |   |
|                                                  |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
| Net      loss per common and common equivalent shares |   | $                   | (0.56       | )      |                | $      | (0.72 | ) |   | $ | (0.60 | ) |   | $ | (0.32 | ) |
|                                                  |   |                |        |   |                |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |   |
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 19

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
              AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                    Six Months Ended   
                                                        June 30,       
                                                   1998          1997  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                        $143,816      $ 83,338
  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         245,718       248,868
  Implicit interest in rents                        5,561         5,408

Total earnings                                   $395,095      $337,614

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $245,718      $248,868
  Implicit interest in rents                        5,561         5,408

Total fixed charges                              $251,279      $254,276


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.57          1.33
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
financial statement of Cracker Barrel for the 6 months ended January 31, 1997,
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           AUG-1-1997
<PERIOD-START>                              AUG-3-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           47961
<SECURITIES>                                       866
<RECEIVABLES>                                     2109
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      62131
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                121457
<PP&E>                                          769340
<DEPRECIATION>                                  141918
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  750101
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            73108
<BONDS>                                          62000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         30424
<OTHER-SE>                                      573123
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    750101
<SALES>                                         526756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                526756
<CGS>                                           186887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   255430
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 29106
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 358
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  55862
<INCOME-TAX>                                     21024
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              34838
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     34838
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.57
        

</TABLE>
#### Mark IMMEKUS, Appellant, v. Terry PAGE; D. Greene; Rhonda Al-manza; L. Carr; Jean Ann Johnson; Glenn E. Helms; Michael Kemna; Thomas Clements, Appellees.

No. 02-2040.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted July 5, 2002.

Decided Aug. 9, 2002.

Before MCMILLIAN, BOWMAN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Missouri inmate Mark Immekus appeals the District Court’s1 adverse grant of summary judgment in his action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Supp. V 1999) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1985 and 1986 (1994). Having carefully reviewed the record, *see Dulany v. Carnahan,*132 F.3d 1234, 1237 (8th Cir.1997) (standard of review), we affirm.

Immekus, who cannot urinate on demand because of a condition that is most likely psychogenic, sued various prison employees and officials and a Correctional Medical Services administrator after he received a disciplinary for failing to give a urine sample within two hours. He alleged a conspiracy and violations of the Eighth Amendment, the Double Jeopardy Clause, and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Because Immekus did not seek a continuance or file a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(f) motion and affidavit informing the District Court what specific discovery was lacking that prevented him from adequately opposing summary judgment, the District Court properly granted summary judgment on the record before it. *See id.*at 1238-39. The Court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Immekus’s discovery motion, *see Stuart v. Gen. Motors Corp.,*217 F.3d 621, 630 (8th Cir.2000), and the Court was not on notice of Immekus’s wish to amend his complaint, *see*Fed. R.Civ.P. 15(a) (requiring a party to obtain leave of court to amend his pleading once a responsive pleading has been served).

We agree with the District Court that defendants did not violate the Eighth *36Amendment. *Cf. Brown v. Nix,*33 F.3d 951, 955 (8th Cir.1994) (explaining that a prison official violates the Eighth Amendment when his actions “result[] in the denial of the minimal civilized measure of life’s necessities” and “he knows of and disregards an excessive risk to inmate health and safety”). We also agree with the District Court that the sanctions at issue do not implicate a liberty interest triggering procedural due process. *See Callender v. Sioux City Residential Treatment Facility,*88 F.3d 666, 668-69 (8th Cir.1996). Further, Immekus’s double-jeopardy claim is meritless. *See Kerns v. Parratt,*672 F.2d 690, 691 (8th Cir.1982) (per curiam). And because there was no underlying constitutional violation, his conspiracy claim necessarily fails as well. *See Marti v. City of Maplewood, Mo.,*57 F.3d 680, 685 (8th Cir.1995).

Accordingly, we affirm. *See*8th Cir. R. 47A(a).

A true copy.

1

. The Honorable Fernando J. Gaitan, Jr., United States District Judge for the Western District of Missouri.
#### Elisa E. KREIGER, Appellant v. PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

No. 01-3937.

United States Court of Appeals, Third Circuit.

Submitted Under Third Circuit LAR 34.1(a) July 12, 2002.

Filed July 25, 2002.

Before SCIRICA and GREENBERG, Circuit Judges, and FULLAM, District Judge.*

*

 Honorable John P. Fullam, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.

OPINION OF THE COURT

PER CURIAM.

Appellant sued her former employer, the Pennsylvania Office of the Attorney General, for violating her rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, *et seq.,*and the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), 29 U.S.C. § 2601, *et seq.,*and for causing her emotional distress by terminating her employment. The magistrate judge to whom the case was assigned with the consent of the parties granted the defendant’s motion to dismiss, because the Office of Attorney General is an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, 71 P.S. § 732-201, and is immune from suit in federal court by reason of the Eleventh Amendment of the United States Constitution. This appeal followed.

It is clear that the magistrate judge was correct. The United States Supreme Court has squarely held that the ADA did not validly abrogate the Eleventh Amendment immunity of states and their agencies. *Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett,*531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). *See also, Lavia v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,*224 F.3d 190 (3d Cir.2000). Plaintiff contends that the *Garrett*decision is “unconstitutional” and should be reconsidered. Needless to say, this court has no authority to overrule a decision of the United States Supreme Court.

Appellant concedes that her claim under FMLA is barred by the Eleventh Amendment, as this court decided in *Chittister v. Department of Community & Econ. Development,*226 F.3d 223 (3d Cir.2000).

Plaintiff further argues that she should be permitted to pursue claims for equitable relief. This, too, is an erroneous view of the law. The Eleventh Amendment bars claims against state agencies “regardless of the nature of the relief sought.” *Pennhurst State School & Hospital v. Halderman,*465 U.S. 89, 100, 104 S.Ct. 900, 79 L.Ed.2d 67 (1984); *see also Puerto Rico Aqueduct & Sewer Authority v. Met-**538*calf & Eddy, Inc.,*506 U.S. 139, 146, 113 S.Ct. 684, 121 L.Ed.2d 605 (1993).

The judgment appealed from -will be affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 231 (Tuesday, December 2, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 63742]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-31509]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Application of Global Air Cargo, Inc. For Issuance of New 
Certificate Authority

AGENCY: Department of Transportation.

ACTION: Notice of Order to Show Cause (Order 97-11-39) Docket OST-97-
2683.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Transportation is directing all interested 
persons to show cause why it should not issue orders (1) finding Global 
Air Cargo, Inc., fit, willing, and able, and (2) awarding it a 
certificate to engage in interstate and foreign charter air 
transportation of property and mail.

DATES: Persons wishing to file objections should do so no later than 
December 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Objections and answers to objections should be filed in 
Docket OST-97-2683 and addressed to Department of Transportation 
Dockets (SVC-120.30, Room PL-401), U.S. Department of Transportation, 
400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590 and should be served upon 
the parties listed in Attachment A to the order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Janet A. Davis, Air Carrier Fitness Division (X-56, Room 6401), 
U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, 
DC 20590, (202) 366-9721.

    Dated: November 25, 1997.
Charles A. Hunnicutt,
Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs.
[FR Doc. 97-31509 Filed 12-1-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-M
p.1 

ll 

Ii 

I! 

i 

f 

OAR Box 1384 

Prepped by Charmelle Mathews 

li 

]j 

II 

II 

Document Number: 

154) ll-E-114 

Docket Number: 

A-94-52 

Printed 7/2/2008 8:42:08 AM Sheet 154 of 264 \ 

1 

ii 

1 

1 

II 

ii 
P.2 

12/02/97 16:56 ©19199410254 PES RTP NC 0)002/002 

A-94-52 

From: 

Date: 

Contact: 

Company: 

Contact Report 

Robert Jemison, Pacific Environmental Services, Inc. (PES) 

December 2,1997 

Mr. R. L. Watkins 

Fibrex Corporation 

Telephone Number: (360) 755-9025 

Fax Number: (360)755-9034 

Contact Summary: 

Mr. R. L. Watkins was contacted to update infonnation provided in the 1993 EPA Reinforced 

Plastic/Composites Screening Survey submitted by Fibrex Corporation for their facility located in 

Burlington. Washington. In response to my questions Mr. Watkins indicated the following: 

The facility still uses the hand lay-up process (bucket and brush/non-pressure-fed roller) in 

the fabrication of certain products. The facility uses both polyester and vinyl ester resins in the hand 

lay-up process. The polyester resin contains approximately 45% styrene content by weight and die 

vinyl ester resin contains either 36% or 45% styrene by weight depending on the product being 

fabricated. No additional styrene is added to these resins in the hand lay-up process. The amount 

of each resin used in the hand lay-up process varies greatly depending on current product demand. 

The facility still uses the filament winding process in the fabrication of certain products. The 

facility uses the same polyester and vinyl ester resins in the filament winding process as it does in 

the hand lay-up process. No additional styrene is added to these resins in the filament winding 

process. The amount of each resin used in the filament winding process varies greatly depending 

on current product demand. 

The facility has discontinued use of non-atomized (flow-coater/flow-chopper) mechanical 

spray application. The facility does not use any type of atomized mechanical spray application. The 

facility does not apply gel coats in the fabrication of any of its products. 

INFORMATION IS ACCURATE
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 22

                                                             Exhibit 12

<TABLE>
              AMERICAN GENERAL FINANCE, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
             Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                (Unaudited)


<CAPTION>
                                                    Six Months Ended
                                                        June 30,
                                                   1999          1998
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                        $166,410      $143,816
  Interest expense                                276,380       245,718
  Implicit interest in rents                        7,482         5,561

Total earnings                                   $450,272      $395,095


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                               $276,380      $245,718
  Implicit interest in rents                        7,482         5,561

Total fixed charges                              $283,862      $251,279


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.59          1.57
</TABLE>