alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67009-67010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33452]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 58

[AD-FRL-5939-8]
RIN 2060-AF71


Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule for Ambient Air Quality 
Surveillance for Lead

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment, EPA is withdrawing the direct final 
rule for Ambient Air Quality Surveillance for Lead. EPA published the 
direct final rule on November 5, 1997 at 62 FR 59813. As stated in that 
Federal Register document, if adverse or critical comments were 
received by December 5, 1997, the effective date would be delayed and 
notice would be published in the Federal Register. EPA subsequently 
received adverse

[[Page 67010]]

comments on that final rule. EPA will address the comments received in 
a subsequent final action in the near future. EPA will not institute a 
second comment period on this document.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 62 FR 59813 is withdrawn as 
of December 19, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brenda Millar, Emissions, Monitoring, 
and Analysis Division (MD-14), Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27711, Telephone: (919)541-4036, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5d303431313c2f733f2f3833393c1d38303c3473382d3c733a322b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="0865616464697a266a7a6d666c69486d656961266d7869266f677e">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the direct 
final rule located in the final rules section of the November 5, 1997 
Federal Register and in the informational document located in the 
proposed rule section of the November 5, 1997 Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 58

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Quality assurance 
requirements, Ambient air quality monitoring network.

    Dated: December 18, 1997.
Robert Brenner,
Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 97-33452 Filed 12-18-97; 4:30 pm]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Abdoulie CEESAY v. IMMIGRATION AND NATURALIZATION SERVICE.

Civil No. S 97-3321.

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Oct. 1, 1997.

Chris Asher, International Law Offices, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.

Lynne A. Battaglia, Baltimore, MD, for Defendant.

*MEMORANDUM OPINION*

SMALKIN, District Judge.

On September 30,1997, the Court received an “Emergency Motion for Stay of Deportation,” filed by Attorney Chris Asher, seeking a stay of removal (formerly denominated *deportation)*proceedings instituted against his client by the Attorney General of the United States. ' The motion recites that Mr. Ceesay had sought, by motion, a stay from the Board of Immigration Appeals, which dismissed the motion summarily on September - 29, 1997. *384Among other things, Mr. Ceesay urges that “unless the [present] motion is granted, he and his wife’s substantive and procedural due process [sic] will be seriously violated.”

This Court, as a United States District Court, has no jurisdiction to review any order of removal to which Mr. Ceesay may be subject, or any. order of the Board of Immigration Appeals in connection therewith. The exclusive jurisdiction over such matters rests with the United States Courts of Appeal. *Auguste v. Attorney General,*118 F.3d 723 (11th Cir.1997). As the Eleventh Circuit made clear in *Auguste,*whether or not constitutional issues are raised, the district courts have no statutory or common law (e.g., habeas corpus) jurisdiction to exercise the power of judicial review over removal (deportation) matters, such jurisdiction being vested exclusively in the Courts of Appeal. 118 F.3d at 725-27. Indeed, the case cited by Mr. Ceesay’s attorney in his emergency motion, *viz., De Leon v. INS,*115 F.3d 643 (9th Cir.1997), deals only with internal procedures adopted by the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for dealing with applications for stays of removal (deportation) orders. There is utterly nothing in that case that supports any view that the United States District Courts have any jurisdiction over such orders. In fact, quite the opposite is apparent from the decision in *De Leon.*

In that it would be in the interests of justice to transfer this case to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631, rather than to dismiss it outright, the Court will enter an Order separately, that transfers this case to that court.

*ORDER*

For the reasons stated in the foregoing Memorandum Opinion, it is, this 1st day of October, 1997, by the Court, ORDERED:

1. That, this Court lacking jurisdiction, this case BE, and the same hereby IS, TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1631;

2. That the Clerk of this Court forthwith transmit the record herein- to the-.Clerk of the United Státes Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; and

3.That the Clerk of Court mail copies hereof to counsel.
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 23
                                                                  Exhibit 12

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


<CAPTION>
                                                         Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                        1999          1998
                                                      (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                                   <C>           <C>
Earnings:
  Income before provision for income
    taxes                                             $251,512      $217,794
  Interest expense                                     420,079       376,116
  Implicit interest in rents                            11,258         8,314

Total earnings                                        $682,849      $602,224


Fixed charges:
  Interest expense                                    $420,079      $376,116
  Implicit interest in rents                            11,258         8,314

Total fixed charges                                   $431,337      $384,430


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                        1.58          1.57
</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.1**
The following is the certification required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
In connection with the annual report of Cardiogenesis Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Michael J. Quinn, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, asadopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Michael J. Quinn    Chief Executive Officer  March 31, 2005  
The following is the certification required pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
In connection with the annual report of Cardiogenesis Corporation (the “Company”) on Form 10-K forthe year ended December 31, 2004 as filed with the SEC on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,Christine G. Ocampo Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350,as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:
(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and (2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.   /s/ Christine G. Ocampo    Chief Financial Officer  March 31, 2005  
The certifications set forth above shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company.
Consent of Independent Auditors


We  consent  to  the  incorporation  by  reference in the following Registration
Statements  of  Isle  of Capri Casinos, Inc. (f/k/a Casino America, Inc.) of our
report  dated  June  14,  2001,  with  respect  to  the  consolidated  financial
statements  of  Isle  of  Capri Casinos, Inc. included in Isle of Capri Casinos,
Inc.  Annual  Report  (Form  10-K)  for  the  year  ended  April  29,  2001:

-     Post-Effective  Amendment  No.  1  to  the Form S-8 No. 33-61752 (the 1992
Stock  Option  Bonus  Plan)

-     Form  S-8  No.  33-80918 (the 1993 Stock Option Plan; the Director's Plan;
and  the  Stock  Bonus  Plan)

-     Form  S-8  No.  33-86940 (the Employee Stock Purchase Plan; the 1993 Stock
Option  Plan;  the Consulting Agreement, dated October 1, 1993, with Theodore E.
Deutch;  the  Consulting  Agreement, dated October 1, 1993, with Scott Crawford;
and  the Consulting Agreement, dated November 10, 1994, with Becker & Poliakoff,
P.A.)

-     Form  S-8  No.  33-93088  (the  Retirement  Trust  and  Savings  Plan)

-     Form  S-8  No.  333-77233  (the  1992 Stock Option Plan and the 1993 Stock
Option  Plan)

-     Form  S-8  No.  333-50776  (the  2000  Deferred  Bonus  Plan)

-     Form  S-8  No.  333-50774  (the  2000  Long-Term  Stock  Incentive  Plan)



New  Orleans,  Louisiana
July  27,  2001
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY
ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2009, I,
Steven H. Benrubi, executive vice president and chief financial officer of The Wet Seal, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Form 10-K for the year ended January 31, 2009, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this Form 10-K for the period ended January 31, 2009, fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Wet Seal, Inc.

Date: April 2, 2009



/s/    STEVEN H. BENRUBISteven H. BenrubiExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
#### George Raymond JOERGER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-384.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Third District.

Nov. 26, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed.
Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan

Item #32 

Required plan identification information: 

Plan: Central States, Southeast and Southwest Areas Pension Plan

Plan No.: 001 

EIN: 36-6044243 

32.0
#### Essie PETERSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. L-396.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. First District.

Dec. 30, 1969.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS 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>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-01-2000
<CASH>                                          $2,291
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  573,191
<ALLOWANCES>                                     7,836
<INVENTORY>                                    509,934
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,099,950
<PP&E>                                         486,767
<DEPRECIATION>                                 259,290
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,470,969
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,003,843
<BONDS>                                        307,430
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       222,064
<OTHER-SE>                                    (62,368)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 1,470,969
<SALES>                                      2,164,867
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,164,897
<CGS>                                        2,025,293
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,025,293
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               102,947
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              33,556
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  3,071
<INCOME-TAX>                                        72
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              2,999
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     2,999
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT

TO SECTION 906 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with this annual report on Form 10-K of The Wet Seal, Inc. for the year
ended January 29, 2011, I, Susan P. McGalla, chief executive officer of The Wet Seal, Inc., hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

1. This Form 10-K for the year ended January 29, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2. The information contained in this Form 10-K for the period ended January 29,
2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The Wet Seal, Inc.

Date: March 30,
2011



/s/    SUSAN P.
MCGALLASusan P. McGallaChief Executive Officer(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Florence E. SMITH, as surviving spouse of Joseph B. Smith, Sr., Deceased, Appellant, v. DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Appellee.

No. 71-221.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 14, 1971.

Tobin, Fisch & Goldstein, P. A., Miami, for appellant.

*286Fowler, White, Humkey, Burnett, Hurley & Banick, Miami, for appellee.

Before SWANN, C. J., and PEARSON and CHARLES CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed upon authority of the rule stated in Page v. Staley, Fla.App. 1969, 226 So.2d 129, 130.
October 28, 2015

Dear Mr. Abzach:

This letter is to inform you th at the following information is missing from your petition (Docket No. FAA

− 2015

− 3536). This information is necessary for the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to process your petition.

 Describe the aircraft makes, models, and types ( i.e., fixed-wing, rotorcraft, lighter-than-air) for the proposed UAS operati on. The descriptions should include the maximum weight (including pa yload). This information can be located in the aircraft manuals.

Please submit the additional information (non-proprietary) to your docket at www.regulations.gov. Once your information has b een submitted, please also send a copy of the requested information (and any proprietary in formation), as well as your comment tracking number from regulations.gov via e-mail to 333exe mptions@faa.gov. If you want us to process your request any further, we must receive the in formation described above by 11/12/15. If we do not receive the information, we will close the docket without notifying you further.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (202) 267-4712.

Sincerely, /S/ Brenda Robeson Program Analyst
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 241 (Tuesday, December 16, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 65800-65801]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER97-4787-000]


High Island Marketing, Inc.; Notice of Issuance of Order

December 11, 1997.
    High Island Marketing, Inc. (High Island) submitted for filing a 
rate schedule under which High Island will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions as a marketer. High Island also requested 
waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, High Island 
requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 CFR Part 
34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of liability 
by High Island.
    On November 25, 1997, pursuant to delegated authority, the 
Director, Division of Rate Applications, Office of Electric Power 
Regulation, granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, 
subject to the following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by High Island should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, High Island is 
authorized to

[[Page 65801]]

issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as a guarantor, 
indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and compatible 
with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or appropriate 
for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of High Island's issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is December 29, 1997. Copies 
of the full text of the order are available from the Commission's 
Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32766 Filed 12-15-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                        34092
<SECURITIES>                               40321565
<RECEIVABLES>                                217910
<ALLOWANCES>                                      0
<INVENTORY>                                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             255452
<PP&E>                                      1240486
<DEPRECIATION>                               832311
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             41281184
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       7837859
<BONDS>                                           0
<COMMON>                                      53097
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                 33390228
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               41281184
<SALES>                                      224127
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            1544316
<CGS>                                             0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                719137
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             659462
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            58318
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              107399
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2512
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          104887
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                                 104887
<EPS-BASIC>                                  0.02
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0.02



</TABLE>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-1302

___________

Michael J. Dahlin, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Joan Fabian, D.O.C. Commissioner; *

Jessica Symmes, M.C.F.-O.P.H. * [UNPUBLISHED]

Warden; David Paulsen, D.O.C. *

Medical Director; Nanette Larson, *

D.O.C. Health Service Supervisor; *

Barbara Nelson, D.O.C.-R.N.-O.P.H. *

Medical Supervisor; Keith Krueger, *

M.D.-C.M.S. Inc.-O.P.H. Regional *

Medical Director; Kathryn Reid, *

R.N.-C.M.S. Inc.-O.P.H. Medical *

Director; Stephen Craane, M.D.-C.M.S. *

Inc.-O.P.H. Primary Physician; *

Darin Haugland, C.M.S. Inc.-P.T. *

Physical Therapist; D.O.C., *

Minnesota Department of Corrections; *

C.M.S. Inc., Correctional Medical *

Services Incorporated, individually and *

in their official capacities, *

*

Appellees. *
___________

Submitted: August 31, 2011

Filed: September 6, 2011

___________

Before LOKEN, BYE, and COLLOTON, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Michael J. Dahlin appeals the district court’s1

 adverse grant of summary

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon de novo review of the record, see

Mason v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009), we agree with

the district court that Dahlin’s Eighth Amendment claims were based solely on his

disagreement with treatment decisions, see Nelson v. Shuffman, 603 F.3d 439, 448-49

(8th Cir. 2010) (prison physicians remain free to exercise their independent medical

judgment, and inmate’s mere disagreement of opinion over matters of expert medical

judgment or over course of treatment does not rise to level of constitutional

violation).2

 The district court also did not abuse its discretion in denying Dahlin’s

motion for appointment of a medical expert. The judgment is affirmed, and we deny

Dahlin’s request for an order directing appellees to provide him with an April 2011

incident report. 

______________________________

1

The Honorable Joan N. Ericksen, United States District Judge for the District

of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Arthur J.

Boylan, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

We decline to address the new matters Dahlin raises on appeal, see Stone v.

Harry, 364 F.3d 912, 914-15 (8th Cir. 2004); or to consider the new evidence he

offers, see Minn. Supply Co. v. Raymond Corp., 472 F.3d 524, 532 (8th Cir. 2006)

(this court considers only evidence that was before district court when summary

judgment ruling was made).

-2-