alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 247 (Wednesday, December 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 67400-67401]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33539]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[AZ-910-0777-61-241A]


State of Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Arizona Resource Advisory Council Meeting, notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a tour and meeting of the Arizona 
Resource Advisory Council. The tour and meeting will be held January 
23-24, 1998 in Safford, Arizona. On January 23, the RAC will tour a 
grazing allotment along the Gila River and discuss various issues 
involved in the Safford Field Office Livestock Grazing Biological 
Opinion. The tour will start at 8:00 a.m. from the BLM Safford Field 
Office and will conclude at 5:00 p.m. The Safford Field Office is 
located at 711 14th Avenue. On January 24, the RAC will conduct a one-
day business meeting. Again, the meeting will be held at the Safford 
Field Office, starting at 8:00 am. until approximately 2:00 p.m. The 
agenda items to be covered at the meeting include review of previous 
meeting minutes; BLM State Director's Update on legislation, 
regulations and statewide planning efforts; Update on Safford and 
Tucson Biological Opinions; Presentation on a study performed on the 
Gila River Watershed and its Runoff; and Reports by the Standards and 
Guidelines, Recreation and Public Relations Working Groups; Reports 
from RAC members; RAC Discussion on future meeting dates and locations. 
A public comment period will take place at 11:30 a.m. January 24, 1998 
for any interested publics who wish to address the Council.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land

[[Page 67401]]

Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.

Michael A. Ferguson,
Deputy State Director, Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-33539 Filed 12-23-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-M
#### Mrs. Margaret L. LARKIN v. CITY OF AMORY.

No. 47012.

Supreme *Court*of Mississippi.

March 5, 1973.

Billy J. Funderburk, Amory, for appellant.

Patterson, Lee & Malski, Jan Patterson, Aberdeen, for appellee.

Before GILLESPIE, C. J., and PATTERSON, SMITH, ROBERTSON and SUGG, JJ.

Affirmed.
Exhibit 32

              Certification of CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906
                        of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

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

      In connection with the quarterly report of DataMetrics Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending July 31, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), Daniel
Bertram, the Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and Rafik Moursalien, the
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, does hereby certify, pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350) that:

      (1)   The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
            15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and

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

         DATAMETRICS CORPORATION

         By:   Daniel Bertram
               -------------------------------------
               Daniel Bertram, CEO

         Dated: September 2006

         By:   Rafik Moursalien
               -------------------------------------
               Rafik Moursalien, CFO

         Dated: September 2006
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 722 

To designate a mountain in the State of Utah as ‘‘Miracle Mountain’’. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 23, 2019 

Mr. CURTIS (for himself, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mr. STEWART, and Mr. 

MCADAMS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Natural Resources 

A BILL 

To designate a mountain in the State of Utah as ‘‘Miracle 

Mountain’’. 

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 ‘‘Miracle Mountain Des5 ignation Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 Congress finds as follows: 

8 (1) On September 13, 2018, the Bald Mountain 

9 Fire burned nearly 20,000 acres of land in Utah. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
2 

•HR 722 IH

1 (2) Elk Ridge City, located in Utah County, 

2 was nearly the victim of this fire. 

3 (3) Suddenly, the fire halted its progression 

4 and, instead of burning into Elk Ridge City, stayed 

5 behind the mountain and spared the city. 

6 (4) Congress, in acknowledgment of this event, 

7 believes this mountain holds special significance to 

8 the residents of Elk Ridge City and surrounding 

9 communities. 

10 (5) The presently unnamed peak has been re11 ferred to as ‘‘Miracle Mountain’’ by many residents 

12 since the fire that nearly went into Elk Ridge City. 

13 SEC. 3. MIRACLE MOUNTAIN. 

14 (a) DESIGNATION.—The mountain in the State of 

15 Utah, located at 39° 59′ 02N, 111° 40′ 12W, shall be 

16 known and designated as ‘‘Miracle Mountain’’. 

17 (b) REFERENCES.—Any reference in a law, map, reg18 ulation, document, record, or other paper of the United 

19 States to the mountain described in subsection (a) shall 

20 be considered to be a reference to ‘‘Miracle Mountain’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42 with BILLS
#### William Franklin DYCHES, Petitioner, Cross-Respondent, v. BALL TRUCKING COMPANY et al., Respondents, Cross-Petitioners.

No. 42655.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 16, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 15, 1972.

Certiorari denied.

CARLTON, ADKINS, BOYD and Mc-CAIN, JJ., concur.

ERVIN, Acting C. J.,

would grant petition for writ of certiorari but would deny cross-petition for writ of certiorari.
#### JERRY LAMPERT REAL ESTATE, INC., a Florida Corporation and Leonard Davidson d/b/a Security Real Estate, Appellants, v. Jerome D. FRANKLIN, trustee, and Anne Drecksler, Appellees.

No. 76-1440.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 13, 1977.

*826Turner, Shapiro & Levy, Miami, for appellants.

Smith, Mandler, Smith, Werner & Jaco-bowitz and Patricia M. Silver, Miami Beach, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HUBBART, JJ.

PEARSON, Judge.

The appellants are real estate brokers who seek to recover a claimed brokerage commission. The brokers sued the seller and the purchasers claiming that they (the appellants) were the procuring cause of a sale from which they were precluded by way of a conspiracy to defraud them of their commission. See *Moylan v. Estes,*102 So.2d 855 (Fla.3d DCA 1958). The trial court entered a summary judgment for defendant-purchaser Jerome D. Franklin, trustee, and for defendant Anne Drecksler, who was a prospective purchaser and subsequent participant in the trust which purchased the real property involved. The summary judgment left pending the case against the defendant-seller.

The only reason apparent on this record for the entry of a summary judgment for the purchasers, as a summary judgment was not entered in the entire case, is that there was no genuine issue of material fact concerning the alleged conspiracy to defraud. An examination of the depositions before the trial judge makes it clear that the defendants-appellees did not carry the burden on summary judgment of showing, as the moving party, that in giving the plaintiff the benefit of all inferences, there was no issue as to conspiracy. We do not mean to state that a prima facie case of conspiracy was established, but simply that it was not demonstrated that there was no issue on that allegation. We, therefore, hold, under the authority of *Stringfellow v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.,*295 So.2d 686 (Fla.2d DCA 1974); and *Megdell*v. *Wieder,*327 So.2d 781 (Fla.3d DCA 1976), that the summary judgment was improperly entered for the defendant-purchasers, and we return the cause to the trial court for further proceedings.

Reversed and remanded.
258 La. 572

#### Willie L. BROWN v. Wennie HAWKINS et al.

No. 51329.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 13, 1971.

In re: Willie L. Brown applying for certiorari, or writ of review to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of East Baton Rouge. 244 So.2d 896.

Writ refused. On the facts found by the Court of Appeal, there is no error of law in its judgment.

DIXON, J.,

dissents from refusal. Pretrial orders are not meant to be a trap to the unwary. The rule stated when trial court denied the right to subpoena adverse party is incorrect.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
ACCOMPANYING CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF DATAMETRICS
CORPORATION AS OF AND FOR THE THREE MONTH PERIOD ENDING JANUARY 25, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-25-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1998
<CASH>                                           1,035
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    1,538
<ALLOWANCES>                                        40
<INVENTORY>                                      6,788
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 9,492
<PP&E>                                           6,771
<DEPRECIATION>                                   4,770
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  12,548
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            5,922
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           147
<OTHER-SE>                                      36,665
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    12,548
<SALES>                                          1,525
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,525
<CGS>                                            1,588
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    1,588
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,162
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  87
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (1,312)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (1,312)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (1,312)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1996
<CASH>                                         462,971
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  996,574
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,000,968
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,488,458
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        25,913
<OTHER-SE>                                 (2,774,726)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,488,458
<SALES>                                      1,010,826
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,010,826
<CGS>                                        1,046,299
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,046,299
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,827,785
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              97,701
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (4,959,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (4,959,716)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (4,959,716)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (2.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (2.17)
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                      EXHIBIT 21

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT


1.    Swift Transportation Co., Inc., an Arizona corporation

2.    Swift Leasing Co., Inc., an Arizona corporation

3.    Common Market Distributing Co., Inc., an Arizona corporation

4.    Sparks Finance Co., Inc., a Nevada corporation

5.    Cooper Motor Lines, Inc., a South Carolina corporation

6.    Common Market Equipment Co., Inc., an Arizona corporation

7.    Swift Transportation Co. of Virginia, Inc., a Virginia corporation

8.    Swift of Texas Co., Inc., a Texas corporation

9.    Swift Logistics Co., Inc., an Arizona corporation

10.   Swift Transportation Corporation, a Nevada corporation

11.   Swift Receivables Corporation, a Delaware corporation

12.   Sun Merger, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

13.   M.S. Carriers, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

14.   M.S. Carriers Warehousing & Distribution, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

15.   M.S. Carriers Logistics de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation

16.   M.S. Air, Inc., a Tennessee corporation

17.   M.S. Global, Inc., a Nevada corporation

18.   M.S. International, Inc., a Nevada corporation

19.   Transportation of Puerto Rico, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation

20.   Quality Driver Sources Inc., a Tennessee corporation

21.   World Wide Solutions, Inc., a Puerto Rico corporation
----- Forwarded by Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US on 02/18/2011 03:10 PM----- 

From: Brian Shrager/RTP/USEPA/US 

To: "Higgins, Cortney" <Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov>

Date: 02/01/2011 03:14 PM 

Subject:Fw: Cost/ER/Secondary Impacts Memo [appx 4 of 4] 

Cortney, 

Last of 4 e-mails with the appendices to the Impacts memo. 

Thanks! 

Brian 

(See attached file: B-2.xlsx)
**EXHIBIT 23**

 

**Consentof Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

 

The Board of DirectorsCascade Microtech, Inc.

 

We consent to theincorporation by reference in the registration statement (No. 333-121964)on Form S-8 of Cascade Microtech, Inc. of our report dated March 15,2006 with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Cascade Microtech, Inc.as of December 31, 2005 and 2004 and the related consolidated statementsof operations, redeemable stock, shareholders’ equity and comprehensive income(loss), and cash flows, for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31,2005, and the related financial statement schedule, management’s assessment ofthe effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of December31, 2005 and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting asof December 31, 2005, which reports appear in the December 31, 2005 annualreport on Form 10-K of Cascade Microtech, Inc.

 

 
| /s/ KPMG LLP     |   |
|------------------|--------|
| Portland, Oregon |
| March 15, 2006   |

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 246 (Tuesday, December 23, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67054]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33634]


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

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETING: Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Monday, January 12, 1998.

PLACE: 1155 21st St., NW., Washington, DC, 9th Fl. Conference Room.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED:  Adjudicatory Matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Jean A. Webb, 202-418-5100.
Jean A. Webb,
Secretary of the Commission.
[FR Doc. 97-33634 Filed 12-19-97; 2:36 pm]
BILLING CODE 6351-01-M
<PAGE>   1
                                                                EXHIBIT 24

                              POWER OF ATTORNEY


KNOW ALL PERSONS BY THESE PRESENTS, that the persons whose signature appear
below, constitute and appoint Robert L. Smialek, Kenneth, H. Koch, David A.
Kauer and Michael R. Elia, and each of them as their true and lawful
attorneys-in-fact and fact and agents, with full power of substitution and
resubstituion, for them and in their names, places, and steads, in any and all
capacities, to sign the Insilco Corporation Annual Report on Form 10-K,
pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended, for the fiscal year ended December 31, 1998, and to file the same,
with all exhibits thereto, and the other documents in connection therewith,
with the Securities and Exchange Commission, granting unto said
attorneys-in-fact and agents and each of them, full power and authority to do
and perform each and every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done
in connection therewith, as fully to all intents and purposes as they might or
could do in person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that said
attorneys-in-fact and agents, or any of them, or their or his or her
substitute or substitutes, may lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue
hereof.


DATED: January 26, 1999

-------------------------------------      --------------------------------
Robert L. Smialek                          Thompson Dean


-------------------------------------      ---------------------------------
William F. Dawson                          David A. Kauer
### IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14

- 40229 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee

v. JUAN MANUEL TORRES

- RODRIGUEZ, also known as Juan Manuel Rodriguez, also known as Juan Torres

- Rodriguez , Defendant

- Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. 5: 13

- CR

- 792

- 1

Before KING, JOLLY, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: * Juan Manuel Torres

- Rodriguez appeals the 46

- month sentence of imprisonment imposed following his plea of guilty to illegal reentry into the United States following deportation. He contends the district court erred by applying a 12

- level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2L1.2 based on his

* 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. United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit 

### FILED July 10, 2015 Lyle W. Cayce Clerk Case: 14-40229 Document: 00513111255 Page: 1 Date Filed: 07/10/2015No. 14

- 40229

2 prior conviction of knowing or intentional delivery of marijuana. See T EX

. H EALTH & S AFETY C ODE A NN

. § 481.120(b)(3). According to Torres

- Rodriguez, the § 2L1.2 enhancemen t is inapplicable to his prior conviction because the Texas statute could be violated by the administration of marijuana, an act outside of the generic definition of a drug trafficking offense under § 2L1.2. We review de novo this preserved objection. Un ited States v. Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d 453, 457 (5th Cir. 2014) , cert. denied , 135 S. Ct. 1892 (2015). However, Torres

- Rodriguez cites no Texas cases, nor any facts in his own situation, showing that Texas courts have applied § 481.120 to administering. Un der Teran

- Salas , 767 F.3d at 460, such a showing of a theoretical possibility, as opposed to a realistic probability, is insufficient to show error. Torres

- Rodriguez additionally contends that the § 2L1.2 enhancement is inapplicable because the Texas statu te may encompass giving away a controlled substance for no remuneration, also conduct outside of the generic definition of a drug trafficking offense. This court recently rejected the argument that an offense must require remuneration to qualify as a drug traffi cking offense under § 2L1.2. United States v. Martinez

- Lugo , 782 F.3d 198, 201

- 05 (5th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, Torres

- Rodriguez’s argument is foreclosed. AFFIRMED. Case: 14-40229 Document: 00513111255 Page: 2 Date Filed: 07/10/2015
### Page 1 of 1



## Telephone Record

Date: September 29, 2011

From: Brian D’Amico, U.S. EPA/EAD

To: Keith Pass, Denver International Airport (DIA)

RE: DIA Deicing Operation Information and Cost Data

During a phone call that took place on September 29, 2011 Keith Pass of Denver International Airport (DIA) informed Brian D’Amico that DIA had spent $140 million on deicing related

infrastructure which included the treatment f acility (distillation column), four deicing pads, treatment (Distillation Column) and all related piping and storage. The four deicing pads have a total of 22 deicing slots. The treatment facility cost $14 million of the $140 million.

Keith also relayed the costs of the Whisky Alpha project, $43 million. This pad was added after DIA construction was complete and includes six de icing slots. The pad is 18 acres and the costs

include: -4 Type I load station -1 10K Type 4 tank & load station -Control building - Associated piping & 800,000 gal storage tank

Keith also indicated that early on one airline stopped using the deicing pads but resumed use as gate deicing can create a mess at the gate and employees were complaining about odors in gate

and basement areas.

Additionally, Keith commented that deicing pads can be a bottleneck, but typically due to lack of staff or lack of deicing trucks. When DIA is fully staffed for deicing, there are typically no bottlenecks. Additionally, runways can be a bottle neck at DIA. The deicing pads allow for recycling, where as deicing at a gate would resu lt in low concentration runoff which may not be suitable for recycling.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. John Willie MITCHELL v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden, Louisiana State Penitentiary.

No. 54309.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 8, 1974.

In re: John Willie Mitchell, applying for Writs of Certiorari, Prohibition, Mandamus, Habeas Corpus and other Remedial Writs.

Writ denied. The allegations urging ineffective counsel are insufficient to warrant the relief sought by relator.