alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67847-67848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33788]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary of Defense


Notice of Closed Meeting

AGENCY: Defense Intelligence Agency; Joint Military Intelligence 
College; DoD.

ACTION: Notice of closed meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Subsection (d) of Section 10 of 
Public Law 92-463, as amended by Section 5 of Public Law 94-409, notice 
is hereby given that a closed meeting of the DIA Joint Military 
Intelligence College Board of Visitors has been scheduled as follows:

DATES: Monday 12 January 1998, 0800 to 1800; and Tuesday, 13 January 
1998, 0800 to 1200.

ADDRESSES: Joint Military Intelligence College, Washington, DC 20340-
5100.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. A. Denis Clift, President, DIA Joint Military Intelligence College, 
Washington, DC 20340-5100 (202/231-3344).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The entire meeting is devoted to the 
discussion of classified information as defined in Section 552b(c)(1), 
Title 5 of the U.S. Code and therefore will be closed. The Board will 
discuss several current critical intelligence issues and advice the 
Director, DIA, as to the successful accomplishment of the mission 
assigned to the Joint Military Intelligence College.


[[Page 67848]]


    Dated: December 22, 1997.
L.M. Bynum,
Alternate OSD Federal Liaison Officer, DoD.
[FR Doc. 97-33788 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAw JUDGES 

In the Matter of 

ECM BioFilms, Inc., 

a corporation, also d/b/a 

Enviroplastics International, 

Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

DOCKET NO. 9358 

ORDER DESIGNATING ADMINISTRATIVE LAW JUDGE 

Pursuant to authority vested in the Federal Trade Commission and delegated to 

the Chief Administrative Law Judge, 

IT IS ORDERED that D. Michael Chappell, Chief Administrative Law Judge at 

this Commission, be, and hereby is, designated and appointed to take testimony and 

receive evidence in this proceeding and to perform all other duties authorized by law. 

ORDERED: 

Date: October 22, 2013
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 245 (Monday, December 22, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 66850]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33347]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Proposed Collection: Comment Request

AGENCY: Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training Corps, Operations 
Section.

ACTION: Notice.

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

    In compliance with Section 3506 (c) (2) (A) of the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, the Air Force Junior Reserve Officer Training 
Corps, Operations Section, announces the proposed reinstatement of a 
public information collection and seeks public comment on the 
provisions thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information shall 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden of the proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance 
the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; 
and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the information collection on 
respondents, including through the use of automated collection 
techniques or other forms of information technology.

DATES: Consideration will be given to all comments received by February 
20, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed 
information collection should be sent to AFROTC/DOJ, 551 East Maxwell 
Blvd, Maxwell Air Force Base, AL 36112-6106.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this 
proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and 
associated collection instruments, please write to the above address or 
call AFROTC/DOJO at (334) 953-5116.
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Application for 
Establishment of Air Force Junior ROTC Unit, AFROTC Form 59, OMB Number 
0701-0114.
    Needs and Uses: The information collection requirement is necessary 
to obtain information about schools which would like to host an Air 
Force Junior ROTC unit.
    Affected Public: Schools which desire to establish an Air Force 
Junior ROTC unit.
    Annual Burden Hours: 20.
    Number of Respondents: 40.
    Average Burden Per Respondent: 30 minutes.
    Frequency: One time.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Summary of Information Collection

    Respondents are high school officials who provide information about 
their school which is interested in hosting an Air Force JROTC unit. 
The completed form is used to determine the eligibility of the school 
to host an Air Force JROTC unit. If the form is not included in the 
file, a school cannot be offered the opportunity to host an AFJROTC 
unit.
Barbara A. Carmichael,
Alternate Air Force, Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-33347 Filed 12-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
the custody award was an abuse of discretion. Having considered the

parties' arguments and the joint appendix, we conclude that appellant's arguments lack merit.

Appellant first argues that the district court's finding that respondent was the parent more likely to allow frequent associations and a continuing relationship between the child and the noncustodial parent,



### see NRS 125.480(4)(c) (2009) 2 , is not supported by substantial evidence. This court reviews district court findings of fact for substantial evidence, "which is evidence that a reasonable person may accept as adequate to sustain a judgment." 

### Ellis v. Carucci, 123 Nev. 145, 149, 161 P.3d 239, 242 (2007). Evidence presented at the custody hearing supports the district court's findings including testimony that appellant substantially delegated his child supervision duties to the child's paternal grandmother, concealed his travel from respondent, and resented the child's relationship with respondent's husband. 

### See id. Testimony also supports the districtcourt's finding that appellant's schedule and history of extensive out-ofstate travel renders an order of joint custody impractical and that appellant's travel did not enhance the child's stability and growth. 

### See id. Overall, the district court found respondent to be more credible, and this court will not reweigh on appeal the credibility of witnesses. 

### Castle v. Simmons, 120 Nev. 98, 103, 86 P.3d 1042, 1046 (2004).

Appellant next argues that the district court abused its discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody, but granting appellant visitation that exceeds 40 percent of the days in a year. This court in 

### Rivero v. River°, 125 Nev. 410, 216 P.3d 213 (2009), provided as a

2 NRS 125.480 (2009) was repealed and reenacted in NRS Chapter 125C by 2015 Nev. Stat., Ch. 445 §§ 8, 19.

SUPREME COURT

OF NEVADA 2 (0) 1947A e

### Pickering

guideline that "each parent must have physical custody of the child at least 40 percent of the time to constitute joint physical custody." 125 Nev. at 425-26, 216 P.3d at 224. Although River° provides a 40-percent guideline for when joint physical custody may be considered, the child's best interest remains paramount, and here the district court made its decision based upon the child's best interest and did not abuse its discretion by awarding respondent primary physical custody subject to appellant's liberal visitation. See Bluestein v. Bluestein, 131 Nev., Adv. Op. 14, 345 P.3d 1044, 1048 (2015) 

### (providing that "klegardless of [the 40- percent Rivero] guideline, . . in custody matters, the child's best interest is paramount"); Ellis, 123 Nev. at 149, 161 P.3d at 241 (recognizing "the district court's broad discretionary powers to determine child custody matters"). Accordingly, we

ORDER the judgment of the district court AFFIRMED.



# e adA. tiAP

' 

### J.

cc: Hon. Kenneth E. Pollock, District Judge, Family Court Division Carolyn Worrell, Settlement Judge Hanratty Law Group Thorndal Armstrong Delk Balkenbush & Eisinger/Reno Eighth District Court Clerk

SUPREME COURT OF NEVADA 

### 3
(0) 1947A
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS**

 

We have issued our report dated January 30, 2004, accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of K•Swiss Inc.on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of K•Swiss Inc. on Form S-8 (File No. 33-36505, effective August 23, 1990, File No. 33-77258,effective April 4, 1994, File No. 33-95650, effective August 10, 1995, File No. 333-79641, effective May 28, 1999, and File No. 333-91864, effective July 7, 2002) and on Form S-3 (File No. 333-37895, effective October 17, 1997 and File No.333-60043, effective August 5, 1998). 

 

/s/ GRANTTHORNTON LLP 

 

Los Angeles, California 

January 30, 2004
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED WITH FORM 10-KSB FOR THE YEAR
ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1996, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                       0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,528
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            45
<OTHER-SE>                                     (4,573)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER



I, Janet Gill, certify that:



1.

I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K/A of Aspen Group, Inc.; and



2.

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: August 25, 2017



|                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                
|/s/ Janet Gill                                                  
|Janet Gill
Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Guy Elliott, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Rio Tinto plc;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary, to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.         /s/ Guy Elliott  Name:        Guy Elliott   Title:  Chief financial officer   Date: November 19, 2010
 

 
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Tom Albanese, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Rio TintoLimited;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary, to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.         /s/Tom Albanese  Name:        Tom Albanese   Title:  Chief executive   Date:November 19, 2010
 

 
**Exhibit 12.1****CERTIFICATION**     I, Guy Elliott, certify that:     1. I have reviewed this amendment to the annual report on Form 20-F/A of Rio TintoLimited;     2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary, to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report.         /s/Guy Elliott  Name:        Guy Elliott   Title:  Chief financial officer   Date:November 19, 2010
#### Anthony Galano, Jr., Individually and Deer Hunter Corp., Doing Business as AGJR Real Estate, et al., Appellants, v Roslyn Savings Bank et al., Respondents.

[736 NYS2d 612]

In an action to recover a real estate broker’s commission, the plaintiffs appeal, as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (McCaffrey, J.), dated April 4, 2001, as granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted by the plaintiff Anthony Galano, Jr.

Ordered that the appeal by the plaintiff Deer Hunter Corp., doing business as AGJR Real Estate, is dismissed as abandoned; and it is further,

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from by the plaintiff Anthony Galano, Jr.; and it is further,

Ordered that the respondents are awarded one bill of costs.

In opposition to the defendants’ prima facie demonstration of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, the appellant Anthony Galano, Jr., failed to raise a triable issue of fact that he was a duly-licensed real estate broker at the time the claim for a commission allegedly accrued (see, Real Property Law § 442-d; *Galbreath-Ruffin Corp. v 40th & 3rd Corp.,*19 NY2d 354).

The plaintiffs do not argue in their brief that the complaint insofar as asserted by Deer Hunter Corp., doing business as AGJR Real Estate, should be reinstated, and accordingly, the appeal by that plaintiff is dismissed as abandoned. Goldstein, J.P., McGinity, Luciano and Crane, JJ., concur.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed January 24, 2018.

________________

No. 3D16-2433

Lower Tribunal No. 16-9357

________________

LBMP Holdings, LLC, and AJK 21st Street, LLC,

Appellants,

vs.

Biarritz GH, LLC, and JHMB, LLC,

Appellees.

An Appeal from the Circuit Court for Miami-Dade County, Jorge E. Cueto,

Judge.

The Alderman Law Firm and Jason R. Alderman, and Troy A. Tolentino;

Alonso Appeals and Cristina Alonso (Pembroke Pines); Broad and Cassel and

Christina Lehm and Beverly A. Pohl (Fort Lauderdale) and Amy Steele Donner

and Mark F. Raymond, for appellants.

Kluger, Kaplan, Silverman, Katzen & Levine, and Alan J. Kluger and Josh

M. Rubens; Samson Appellate Law and Daniel M. Samson, for appellees.

Before SUAREZ, LAGOA and SALTER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.
On Concession of Error

Based on the appellees’ proper and commendable concession of error, the

circuit court order dismissing the appellants’ counterclaim with prejudice is

reversed. Dismissal was error because the appellants were not duly noticed or

provided with an opportunity to be heard. This case is remanded for further

proceedings, including consideration of any motion by appellants to amend the

counterclaim, should the appellants so move. 

Reversed and remanded for further proceedings. 

2
#### George W. PAPE, Appellant, v. Robert T. DePEW and Main Insurance Company, Appellees.

No. Q-203.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

July 3, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 31, 1973.

*225Lefferts L. Mabie, Jr., of Levin, War-field, Graff, Mabie & Rosenbloum, Pensacola, for appellant.

Joe J. Harrell of Harrell, Wiltshire, Bozeman, Clark & Stone, Pensacola, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Appellant was injured while a patron of an amusement device known as the “Giant Slide” which was owned and operated by appellee DePew. A negligence action was brought by appellant, the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellees and final judgment was entered in behalf of appellee DePew and his insurance carrier.

Appellant now seeks reversal of said judgment. It is contended that the trial court erred in denying appellant’s request to instruct the jury on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur because appellant was injured while riding a device exclusively controlled and maintained by appellee and the occurrence was such that, in the ordinary course of events, would not have happened had the appellee used due care. However, there is a third condition necessary to be shown before a plaintiff may rely upon the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur and that condition is that the injury was not the result of any voluntary action or contribution on the part of the plaintiff. Here, the record demonstrates ample evidence of contributory negligence on the part of appellant in his use of the slide. Nevertheless, appellant points to the case of Holman v. Ford Motor Company, 239 So.2d 40 (Fla.App. 1st, 1970), in support of his position that a conflict with the testimony which establishes the basis for res ipsa would not render the doctrine inapplicable.

Appellant’s reasoning in this regard is faulty for the reason that there was not in this case a mere conflict in the testimony regarding the element of contribution on appellant’s part. Rather, there was a complete failure of the evidence to show lack of fault on appellant’s behalf which would bring the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur into play. On the contrary, there was sufficient evidence to show that the appellant had been drinking, that he disregarded certain warning signs on the premises and that he disregarded the specific instructions given by an employee. Hence, appellant did not demonstrate the requisite lack of fault necessary to warrant an instruction on res ipsa loquitur.

We have considered appellant’s remaining points on appeal and deem them to be without merit.

Appellant having failed to demonstrate reversible error in the proceedings below, the judgment appealed herein is affirmed.

RAWLS, C. J., and SPECTOR and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7196

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

CALVERNE LYKE, JR., a/k/a Butch,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James P. Jones, Chief District

Judge. (2:03-cr-10074; 7:06-cv-00058)

Submitted: October 27, 2006 Decided: November 9, 2006

Before WILLIAMS and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Calverne Lyke, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Jennifer Rebecca Bockhorst,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Abingdon, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Calverne Lyke, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order dismissing as untimely his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge

issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)

(2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a

substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by

demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any

assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is

debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by

the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell,

537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Lyke has not

made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### James Lloyd KEMPER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-744.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

July 19, 1973.

Appeal dismissed.