alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3550]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-320-006]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

February 7, 1997.
    Take notice that on February 5, 1997, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Fifth 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet, to be 
effective February 5, 1997:

Second Revised Sheet No. 29

    Koch states that this tariff sheet reflects the necessary reporting 
requirements as ordered by the Commission for a specific negotiated 
rate transaction.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Regulations. All such protest must be filed in accordance 
with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining appropriate action to be 
taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3550 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<PAGE>
<PAGE> 18

                                                             Exhibit 12

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


<CAPTION>
                                                    Nine Months Ended  
                                                      September 30,    
                                                   1997          1996  
                                                 (dollars in thousands)
<S>                                              <C>           <C>
Earnings:

  Income before provision for income   
    taxes                                        $160,390      $174,564 
  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                         358,129       360,852
  Implicit interest in rents                       10,102        11,064

Total earnings                                   $528,621      $546,480

Fixed charges:

  Interest expense (including $23,221
    for 1997 to fund assets held for
    sale)                                        $358,129      $360,852
  Implicit interest in rents                       10,102        11,064

Total fixed charges                              $368,231      $371,916


Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                   1.44          1.47
</TABLE>
<PAGE>
**Exhibit 32(b)**

**DPL Inc.**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officersof DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theIssuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2007,which this certificate accompanies, fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that theinformation contained therein fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Issuers as of the datesand for the periods expressed therein.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has beenprovided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed:

/s/ John J. Gillen

John J. Gillen

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

Date: April 30, 2007

The foregoing certificateis being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not beingfiled as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosuredocument.

 

----

**Exhibit 32(b)**

**The Dayton Powerand Light Company**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACTOF 2002

 

The undersigned officersof The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuer”) hereby certifies pursuantto 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q forthe period ended March 31, 2007, which this certificate accompanies, fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained therein fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has beenprovided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed:

/s/ John J. Gillen

John J. Gillen

Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

 

Date: April 30, 2007

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350 and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67825]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
[I.D. 122397H]


Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council; Public Meeting

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will 
convene a public meeting.

DATES: The meeting will be held on January 9, 1996, beginning at 9:00 
a.m. and conclude at 4:30 p.m.

ADDRESSES: This meeting will be held at the New Orleans Airport Hilton 
Hotel, 901 Airline Highway, Kenner, LA; telephone: 504-469-5000.
    Council address: Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 
West Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331, Tampa, FL 33609.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Antonio B. Lamberte, Economist, Gulf 
of Mexico Fishery Management Council; telephone: 813-228-2815.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Shrimp Advisory Panel (AP) will review 
scientific information on the cooperative shrimp closure with the state 
of Texas, royal red shrimp regulatory amendment (tentative) and 
comparison of shrimp vessel effort and bycatch characterization effort. 
The AP consists principally of commercial shrimp fishermen, dealers and 
association representatives. The AP will develop recommendations to the 
Council regarding the extent of Federal waters off Texas that will be 
closed in 1996 concurrently with the closure of Texas waters. If 
Amendment 8 to the Shrimp Fishery Management Plan is approved, the AP 
will review a regulatory amendment that would provide a procedure for 
setting a total allowable catch of royal red shrimp. The AP will also 
develop recommendations regarding the level of effort in the shrimp 
fishery after reviewing information that compares levels of effort 
collected using the current method and effort collected from the 
bycatch characterization study.
    Although other issues not contained in this agenda may come before 
this Council for discussion, in accordance with the Magnuson-Stevens 
Fishery Conservation and Management Act, those issues may not be the 
subject of formal Council action during this meeting. Council action 
will be restricted to those issues specifically identified in the 
agenda listed in this notice.

Special Accommodations

    This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities. 
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids 
should be directed to Anne Alford at the Council (see ADDRESSES) by 
January 2, 1996.

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Gary C. Matlock,
Director, Office of Sustainable Fisheries, National Marine Fisheries 
Service.
[FR Doc. 97-33972 Filed 12-23-97; 3:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
#### POWELL SYSTEMS, INC., a Florida Corporation, and Marion Henderson Cribb Bear, Appellants, v. John FOWLER, Appellee.

No. 70-774.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1971.

*542Stephens, Magill & Thornton, Miami, for appellants.

Horton & Schwartz, James A. Davis, II and Jay A. Swidler, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, HEN-DRY and SWANN, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Following a jury trial in an action for damages for personal injuries received in an automobile collision accident, a verdict was rendered for the defendants, and judgment entered thereon. Plaintiff filed a timely motion for new trial. The trial judge granted the motion and ordered a new trial. The grounds therefor as stated in the order were that the verdict was against the manifest weight of the evidence; that the verdict rendered shocked the judicial conscience; that the verdict was influenced by considerations beyond and outside the record; and that the trial judge was of the opinion he had committed error by denying a motion of the plaintiff for mistrial, made during closing argument. Upon consideration of the record and briefs we are impelled to conclude that the action of the trial court in granting a new trial was not an abuse of discretion, and should be affirmed on authority of Cloud v. Fallis, Fla.1959, 110 So.2d 669; Bennett v. Jacksonville Expressway Authority, Fla.1961, • 131 So.2d 740; New Deal Cab Co. v. Meyer, Fla.App.1962, 139 So.2d 189.

Affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from United
Investors Growth Properties II 1995 Year-End 10-KSB and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such 10-KSB filing.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000862114
<NAME> UNITED INVESTORS GROWTH PROPERTIES II
<MULTIPLIER> 1
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1995
<CASH>                                         482,107
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,267
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F1>
<PP&E>                                       8,037,082
<DEPRECIATION>                                 966,533
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,879,223
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F1>
<BONDS>                                      5,032,837
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,717,954
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,879,223
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,529,037
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,490,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             471,008
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    72,369
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.88
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>The Registrant has an unclassified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67924]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33877]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review: Comment Request for Reclearance of 
Expiring Information Collections: OPM Form 1496 and 1496A

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) will submit to the Office of Management and 
Budget a request for reclearance of an information collection. OPM 
Forms 1496 and 1496A, Application for Deferred Retirement (Separations 
before October 1, 1956) and Application for Deferred Retirement 
(Separations on or after October 1, 1956) are used by eligible former 
Federal employees to apply for a deferred Civil Service annuity. Two 
forms are needed because there was a major revision in the law 
effective October 1, 1956; this affects the general information 
provided with the forms.
    Comments are particularly invited on: Whether this collection of 
information is necessary for the proper performance of functions of the 
Office of Personnel Management, and whether it will have practical 
utility; whether our estimate of the public burden of this collection 
of information is accurate, and based on valid assumptions and 
methodology; and ways in which we can minimize the burden of the 
collection of information on those who are to respond, through the use 
of appropriate technological collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.
    Approximately 3,000 OPM Forms 1496 and 1496A will be completed 
annually. We estimate it takes approximately 1 hour to complete the 
form. The annual burden is 3,000 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208, 
or E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f3999e959281819c9db39c839edd949c85"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="462c2b2027343429280629362b68212930">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received on or before March 
2, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--Lorraine E. Dettman, Chief, 
Operations Support Division, Retirement and Insurance Service, U.S. 
Office of Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW, Room 3349, 
Washington, DC 20415.

FOR INFORMATION REGARDING ADMINISTRATIVE COORDINATION CONTACT:
Mary Beth Smith-Toomey, Budget & Administrative Services Division, 
(202) 606-0623, U.S. Office of Personnel Management.

Janice R. Lachance,
Director.
[FR Doc. 97-33877 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/d07b1474/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


        <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE>         5
<MULTIPLIER>      1000


<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                        DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                           JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                             JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                      $  6,829
<SECURITIES>                                   3,783
<RECEIVABLES>                                117,905
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (477)
<INVENTORY>                                   86,713
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             222,107
<PP&E>                                       695,691
<DEPRECIATION>                               390,435
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               549,182
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        221,579
<BONDS>                                      128,854
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                              0
<PREFERRED>                                        0
<COMMON>                                      50,340
<OTHER-SE>                                   104,612
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 549,182
<SALES>                                      902,533
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             902,533
<CGS>                                        816,473
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                816,473
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              78,222
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (1)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             8,543
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                9,210
<INCOME-TAX>                                   3,560
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            5,650
<DISCONTINUED>                                     0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                    0
<CHANGES>                                          0
<NET-INCOME>                                   5,650
<EPS-BASIC>                                   0.57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   0.56




</TABLE>
From: Brtko, Kathryn [mailto:brtkok@bp.com]

Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2014 10:47 AM

To:support@epamts-support.com

Cc: Raburn, Janice; Sopata, Joe

Subject: Question on Tier 3

The table in the prepublication version on page 372 shows:

80.178 Added to incorporate standards and test methods by reference.

In the prepublication version of the regulations, page 560 shows section 80.177, but I do not see section

80.178.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-51309 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE ANGEL MIRELES-TORRES, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. DR-03-CR-354-1-WWJ

-------------------- Before BARKSDALE, DeMOSS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Angel Mireles-Torres appeals the sentence imposed following his guilty plea conviction of being found in the United States after deportation/removal in violation of 8 U.S.C. § 1326. Mireles-Torres contends that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) define separate offenses. He argues that the prior conviction that resulted in his increased sentence is an element of a separate offense under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) that should have been alleged in his indictment. Mireles-Torres maintains that he United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## F I L E D June 23, 2004 Charles R. Fulbruge III ClerkNo. 03-51309 -2- pleaded guilty to an indictment which charged only simple reentry under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a). He argues that his sentence exceeds the two-year maximum term of imprisonment which may be imposed for that offense.
In Almendarez-Torres v. United States , 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), the Supreme Court held that the enhanced penalties in 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b) are sentencing provisions, not elements of separate offenses. The Court further held that the sentencing provisions do not violate the Due Process Clause. Id. at 239-47. Mireles-Torres acknowledges that his argument is foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres , but asserts that the decision has been cast into doubt by Apprendi v. New Jersey , 530 U.S. 466, 490 (2000). He seeks to preserve his argument for further review. Apprendi did not overrule Almendarez-Torres
. See Apprendi , 530 U.S. at 489-90; United States v. Dabeit , 231 F.3d 979, 984 (5th Cir. 2000). This court must follow Almendarez-Torres “unless and until the Supreme Court itself determines to overrule it.” Dabeit , 231 F.3d at 984 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). The judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED. The Government has moved for a summary affirmance in lieu of filing an appellee’s brief. In its motion, the Government asks that an appellee’s brief not be required. The motion is GRANTED.
AFFIRMED; MOTION GRANTED.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

I, E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board, President and Chief Executive
Officer of Crown Crafts, Inc. (the Company), do hereby certify, in accordance
with 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge:



|1. |  | The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the period ending
December 28, 2003 (the Periodic Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of
1934 15 U.S.C. §§78m or 78o(d); and
|-- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|  
|2. |  | The information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Company.                                                                                        

Dated: February 11, 2004

| |  |                                            
| |  | -------------------------------------------
| |  | /s/ E. Randall Chestnut                    
| |  |                                            
| |  | E. Randall Chestnut, Chairman of the Board,
| |  | President and Chief Executive Officer
GhOE Ute.
cnet LON
72" Heverven orouMENTs “es,

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1,52 co! 19 BW
FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION 1" Spoperatl,
92 JUNO PH 5 00 er

DUCUMENT PROCESSING

In the Matter of

LIBBEY INC., a corporation,
Docket No, 9301
and

NEWELL RUBBERMAID, INC., a corporation

Nee ee ee Ne Ne ee

ORDER ON PREHBEARING CONFERENCE

The prehearing scheduling conference in the above captioned mattcr was previously
scheduled for June 11, 2002, at 2:00 p.m. On June 10, 2002, Respondents Libbey Inc. and
Newell Rubbermaid, Inc. filed a motion to extend the deadline for the scheduling conference.
Complaint Counsel does not oppose the motion.

Respondents have demonstrated compelling circumstances fur postponing ihe scheduling
conference. Accordingly, the scheduling conference previously set for June 11, 2002, is

rescheduled for June 27, 2002, at 2:06 p.m. in room 532, Federal Trade Commission Building,
600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.. Washington, D.C.

D, Michael Cappel (

Administrative Law Judge

Dated: June 10, 2002