alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration


Advisory Circular 20-139, Commercial Assistance During 
Construction of Amateur-Built Aircraft

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of availability.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces the availability of Advisory Circular 
20-139, Commercial Assistance During Construction of Amateur-Built 
Aircraft. Advisory Circular 20-139 provides information and guidance 
concerning an acceptable means, but not the only means, of 
demonstrating compliance with the requirements of Federal Aviation 
Regulations Part 21, Certification Procedures for Products and Parts. 
It is directed to persons involved in the construction of amateur-built 
aircraft, the manufacturer of kits designed to be assembled into 
aircraft by amateur-builders, builders of aircraft fabricated from 
plans for certification as amateur-built, and persons providing 
assistance to amateur-builders.

ADDRESSES: Copies of AC 20-139 can be obtained from the following: U.S. 
Department of Transportation, Subsequent Distribution Office, M-483.6, 
Ardmore East Business Center, 3341 Q 75th Avenue, Landover, MD 20785.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on April 3, 1996.
Frank P. Paskiewicz,
Acting Manager, Production and Airworthiness Certification Division.
[FR Doc. 97-3506 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Charles Franklin LEIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 01-10387.

D.C. No. CR-99-00215-RLH.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002 *.

Decided Aug. 16, 2002.

Before SCHROEDER, Chief Judge, TASHIMA and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

*

This pane] unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Charles Franklin Leivan appeals his seventy-eight month sentence imposed following the entry of a guilty plea to two counts of being a felon in possession of a firearm, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 922(g) and 924(a)(2), and two counts of manufacturing a controlled substance and aiding and abetting, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and 18 U.S.C. § 2. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and we affirm.

Leivan’s contention that the district court improperly enhanced his sentence for obstruction of justice is without merit. We review de novo whether a defendant’s conduct constitutes obstruction of justice under U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1. *United States v. Draper,*996 F.2d 982, 984 (9th Cir.1993). We review the underlying factual findings for clear error. *Id.*Because Leivan willfully failed to appear at a judicial proceeding as ordered, the district court properly enhanced his offense level by two levels for obstruction of justice. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3C1.1, cmt. n. 4(e); *Draper,*996 F.2d at 984-86 (explaining that an obstruction of justice enhancement does not require actual obstruction and may properly be based on the mere postponing of a hearing due to failure to appear).

Leivan’s contention that the district court erred in failing to reduce his offense level for acceptance of responsibility also lacks merit. We review for clear error the *268district court’s determination of whether a case is an extraordinary case justifying a simultaneous adjustment for obstruction of justice and acceptance of responsibility under § 3E1.1. *See United States v. Thompson,*80 F.3d 368, 370 (9th Cir.1996). Because defendant’s obstructive conduct was inconsistent with an acceptance of responsibility, the district court did not clearly err in denying an acceptance of responsibility reduction. *See*U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1, cmt. n. 3-4; *Thompson,*80 F.3d at 371 (explaining that timely guilty plea and apology at sentencing did not outweigh fact that defendant absconded before sentencing).

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as may be provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.
#### David WORLD, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 69-922.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 12, 1970.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### Betty J. MINOR, Petitioner, v. Basil F. MINOR, Respondent.

No. 39592.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Oct. 21, 1970.

*302Thomas J. Collins, Collins, Hallett, Ford & Thurman, St. Petersburg, for petitioner.

Michael N. Athanason, Harris, Wing, Clark & Green, St. Petersburg, for respondent.

DREW, Justice.

We have for review by writ of certiorari a decision of the District Court of Appeal, Second District,1 affirming a trial court order that compels the plaintiff wife in a divorce action to answer over objections invoking the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination certain pretrial deposition questions relating to the husband’s counterclaim of adultery, or suffer dismissal of her complaint. The decision’s direct conflict with Simkins v. Simkins2 from the Third District Court of Appeal lodges jurisdiction in this Court pursuant to Fla.Const. art. V, § 4(2), F.S.A.

The district court relies upon our decision in Stockham v. Stockham 3, in which we held that a plaintiff in a divorce action should not be permitted to further prosecute her action upon refusal to answer certain requests for admissions related to an affirmative defense of adultery. The majority of the District Court of Appeal, Third District, reached an opposite conclusion in Simkins v. Simkins, *supra,*by relying upon Spevack v. Klein 4 and Garrity v. New Jersey5, two United States Supreme Court decisions handed down three years after rendition of *Stockham*by this Court.

We have carefully reviewed *Spevack*and *Garrity,*and other related cases for possible impact upon the precise issue now before the Court. We agree with the analysis of a majority of the district court that subsequent United States Supreme Court decisions do not require alteration of our previously expressed conclusion.

We adhere to our earlier decision in *Stockham,*disapprove the result reached in Simkins v. Simkins, *supra,*and approve the decision of the district court below.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.

ROBERTS, J., dissents.

1

. Minor v. Minor, 232 So.2d 746 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1970).

2

. 219 So.2d 724 (3d Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969).

3

. 168 So.2d 320 (Fla.1964).

4

. 385 U.S. 511, 87 S.Ct. 625, 17 L.Ed.2d 574 (1967).

5

. 385 U.S. 493, 87 S.Ct. 616, 17 L.Ed.2d 562 (1967).
#### Pablo GONZALEZ, Petitioner, v. STATE of Florida, Respondent.

No. 42976.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Dec. 20, 1972.

Certiorari denied. 267 So.2d 45.

ROBERTS, C. J., and ERVIN, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
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 15, 2000 (except for Note 20, as to which the date is July 26,
2000),  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  30,  2000.

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

-     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); and

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


                                                       /s/Ernst & Young LLP

New  Orleans,  Louisiana
July  16,  2000
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 701 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 701

  To provide for the transfer of the TARAWA class amphibious ship USS 
                        NASSAU (LHA-4) to Japan.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 22, 2019

 Mr. Conaway introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Foreign Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To provide for the transfer of the TARAWA class amphibious ship USS 
                        NASSAU (LHA-4) to Japan.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``FriendSHIP Act''.

SEC. 2. TRANSFER OF THE TARAWA CLASS AMPHIBIOUS SHIP USS NASSAU (LHA-4) 
              TO JAPAN.

    (a) Transfer by Sale or Grant.--The President is authorized to 
transfer the TARAWA class amphibious ship USS NASSAU (LHA-4) to Japan 
on a sale basis under section 21 of the Arms Export Control Act (22 
U.S.C. 2761) or on a grant basis under section 516 of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j).
    (b) Costs of Transfers.--Any expense incurred by the United States 
in connection with a transfer authorized by this section shall be 
charged to the recipient notwithstanding section 516(e) of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 2321j(e)).
    (c) Repair and Refurbishment in United States Shipyards.--To the 
maximum extent practicable, the President shall require, as a condition 
of the transfer of a vessel under this section, that the recipient to 
which the vessel is transferred have such repair or refurbishment of 
the vessel as is needed, before the vessel joins the naval forces of 
that recipient, performed at a shipyard located in the United States, 
including a United States Navy shipyard.
    (d) Expiration of Authority.--The authority to transfer a vessel 
under this section shall expire at the end of the 3-year period 
beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7036 

AN ACT 

To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhancement and 

Reform Act of 2004 to repeal the sunset provision. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•HR 7036 EH

1 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

2 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Antitrust Criminal 

3 Penalty Enhancement and Reform Permanent Extension 

4 Act’’. 

5 SEC. 2. FINDINGS; PURPOSE. 

6 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress finds the following: 

7 (1) Conspiracies among competitors to fix 

8 prices, rig bids, and allocate markets are categori9 cally and irredeemably anticompetitive and con10 travene the competition policy of the United States. 

11 (2) Cooperation incentives are important to the 

12 efforts of the Antitrust Division of the Department 

13 of Justice to prosecute and deter the offenses de14 scribed in paragraph (1). 

15 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this Act, and the 

16 amendments made by this Act, is to strengthen public and 

17 private antitrust enforcement by providing incentives for 

18 antitrust violators to cooperate fully with government 

19 prosecutors and private litigants through the repeal of the 

20 sunset provision of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty En21 hancement and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note). 

22 SEC. 3. REPEAL OF SUNSET PROVISION. 

23 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 211 of the Antitrust 

24 Criminal Penalty Enhancement and Reform Act of 2004 

25 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is repealed. 
3 

•HR 7036 EH

1 (b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

2 Section 212 of the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhance3 ment and Reform Act of 2004 (15 U.S.C. 1 note) is 

4 amended— 

5 (1) by striking paragraph (6); and 

6 (2) by redesignating paragraph (7) as para7 graph (6). 

Passed the House of Representatives June 25, 2020. 

Attest: 

Clerk. 
116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7036 

AN ACT 

To amend the Antitrust Criminal Penalty Enhanceset provision. ment and Reform Act of 2004 to repeal the sun-
**Exhibit 32(b)**

 

**DPL Inc.**

** **

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

The undersigned officers of DPL Inc. (the “Issuer”) hereby certifiespursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuer’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the period ended June 30, 2008, which this certificate accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, or other document authenticating,acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed formwithin the electronic version of this statement required by Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has been provided to the Issuer and will beretained by the Issuers and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

Signed:

 

 
| /s/ John J. Gillen                                           |   |
|--------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J. Gillen                                               |   |
| Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |   |

 

Date: July 23, 2008

 

The foregoing certificate is being furnishedsolely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as partof the Issuer’s Annual Report or as a separate disclosure document.

 

----
TREASURY NEWS

Department of the Treasury Washington, D.C.

FOR RELEASE AT 3:00 p.m. Contact: Michelle Smith

February 1, 1993 Telephone 202-622-2960

TREASURY ANNOUNCES MARKET BORROWING ESTIMATES

The Treasury Department today announced that 

its net market borrowing for the January-March 1993 

quarter is estimated to be $67 billion, with a $20 

billion cash balance on March 31. The Treasury also 

announced that its net market borrowing for the 

April-June 1993 quarter is estimated to be in a 

range of $25 billion to $30 billion, with a $35 

billion cash balance at the end of June. The 

borrowing estimates assume that legislation to 

provide additional funding for thrift resolutions 

will not be enacted in time to permit significant 

Resolution Trust Corporation spending during these 

two quarters.

In the quarterly announcement of its borrowing 

needs on October 30, 1992, the Treasury estimated 

net market borrowing during the January-March 1993 

quarter to be in a range of $65 billion to $70 

billion, assuming a $20 billion cash balance on 

March 31. The current estimate is within the range 

estimated in October.

Actual market borrowing in the quarter ended 

December 31, 1992, was $76.6 billion, while the endof-quarter cash balance was $29.9 billion. On 

October 30, the Treasury had estimated market 

borrowing for the October-December quarter to be $87 

billion, with a $30 billion cash balance on December 

31. A reduction in the cash deficit and greaterthan-expected sales of nonmarketable securities 

accounted for the reduction in market borrowing.

LB-18
The information contained in this file set comprises everything that was downloadable on 12/21/2010 

from NMED’s website http://www.nmenv.state.nm.us/aqb/reghaz/Regional-Haze_index.html.

File list:

030115_ESMP_Policy.pdf

03312008Final_BART_Modeling_Response_with_Attachments_0331.pdf

04112007PNMBARTModelingProtocol_April11_2007.pdf

06182007PNMBARTReport-FinaltoPNM_June18_2007-AppendixE.pdf

07112007PNMSCRCostAnalysis-FINALRev2wcomments.pdf

07112007PNMSNCR-HybridCostAnalysis-FINALRev2wcomments.pdf

08232007visibilitycosteffectivenessdata_August23_2007_Updated.pdf

08282008COMPLETENalcoMobotecNOxBART-FINAL082808.pdf

08282008COMPLETEPMBARTFinal082808.pdf

10162007PNMBART8thHighDeltaDV2001101607.pdf

10162007PNMBART8thHighDeltaDV2002101607.pdf

10162007PNMBART8thHighDeltaDV2003101607.pdf

11052007BARTModelingRefinements.11.05.07_AmmoniaLimitingMethod.pdf

20.002.0065.pdf

20.002.0073.pdf

20.002.0081.pdf

2006Wall-firedDry-bottomEasternEGUswithSCRcharts.xls

2006wall-firedEGUOzoneSeasonsummarydatasheet.xls

308RH_Petition_and_Statement.pdf

309.htm

AQB-Public-Notice.html

AppendixA_EGUsless06lbmmBtuin2009.xls

AppxA_AttachmentA_BARTModelingResults.pdf

AppxA_AttachmentB_BARTModelingReceptors.pdf

AppxA_NM_SJGS_NOxBARTDetermination_06212010.pdf

AppxB_4FactorAnalysis_WRAPRegion_04202010.pdf

AppxC_4FactorAnalysis_NMSources_05052009.pdf

AppxD_20_2_65NMAC_SmokeManagement.pdf

CAC_Final.pdf

COMPLETEFinalBARTResponse053008.pdf

COMPLETEFinalDiscussionofSJGSCoalClassificationRevisi.pdf

COMPLETE_Final_SO3_Removal_Report_031609.pdf

DepartmentRequest12.21.2007.pdf

DiscussionofOAQPSCostManualMethodRev080329.pdf

Draft NOx-PM Executive Summary2.pdf

Draft_WRAP_Milestone_Report_2007.pdf

EIB_10-05R_Order.pdf
FAQs_common.htm

FWS-NPS_Comments-NewMexicoRegionalHazeSIP-17AUG2010.pdf

GCVTCFinal.pdf

NMBARTComments.pdf

NMED_Response.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxA.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxC1.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxE1-3.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxF.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxG.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxJ.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_AppxM.pdf

NMRHSIP_123103_noappx.pdf

NM_40CFR309(d)(9)_2003_Report.pdf

NPSestimateofSJGS1SCR.xls

NPSestimateofSJGS2SCR.xls

NPSestimateofSJGS3SCR.xls

NPSestimateofSJGS4SCR.xls

PNMBARTReport_AppendixO-1.pdf

PNMSCRSchematicQuestion1ResponseRev1.pdf

PNM_Response_to_NMED_Rev_070914rev2.pdf

PNM_motionforcontinuance.pdf

Proposed_RH_SIP_308_06212010.pdf

Regional-Haze_index.html

SCRoneasternwall-firedEGUs.doc

SJGS1Dry-BottomPCwFGDFFPMspeciationprofile.xls

SJGS2Dry-BottomPCwFGDFFPMspeciationprofile.xls

SJGS3Dry-BottomPCwFGDFFPMspeciationprofile.xls

SJGS4Dry-BottomPCwFGDFFPMspeciationprofile.xls

SO2EmisMonPro.pdf

WEB_EATS_Final Report_July_18.pdf

WRAPAEGPolicy1.pdf

WRAPFTSPolicy.pdf

aqb.htm

contact.html

docs.html

filename.txt

index.cfm.html

index.html

index_001.html

intro_to_visibility.pdf

permit.htm

rh_facts.pdf
rhfedreg.pdf

sitemap.htm

vismon.cfm.html

what.html

wrap-fs.pdf

wraprule.pdf

www.westgov.org.html

www.wrapair.org.html
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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-4321

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

GRAHAM C. ROGERS,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Wilmington. W. Earl Britt, Senior

District Judge. (CR-00-90-BR)

Submitted: January 14, 2004 Decided: March 9, 2004

Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas P. McNamara, Federal Public Defender, Edwin C. Walker, First

Assistant Federal Public Defender, Jeanette Doran Brooks, OFFICE OF

THE FEDERAL PUBLIC DEFENDER, Raleigh, North Carolina, for

Appellant. Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Anne

Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Graham C. Rogers was convicted by a jury of filing a

false claim in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 287 (2000) and sentenced to

a sixty-month term of probation. He appeals the district court’s

denial of the Government’s motion to revoke his probation. On

appeal, Rogers’s attorney filed a brief in accordance with

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), concluding there are no

meritorious issues for appeal but asserting the district court’s

decision to continue Rogers’s supervised probation was unreasonable

because the court failed to consider alternative placements that

would accommodate Rogers’s mental instability. Though notified of

his opportunity to file a pro se supplemental brief, Rogers has not

done so.

After examination of the record, which documents the

court’s extensive dealings with Rogers’s repeated violations of the

terms and conditions of his probation, we find the district court

did not abuse its discretion in deciding to continue Rogers’s

supervised probation or in denying the motion to revoke his

probation. We have examined the entire record in this case in

accordance with the requirements of Anders and find no meritorious

issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s

order.

This court requires that counsel inform his client, in

writing, of his right to petition the Supreme Court of the United
- 3 -

States for further review. If the client requests that a petition

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be

frivolous, then counsel may move in this court for leave to

withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must state that a

copy thereof was served on the client. 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.

AFFIRMED
#### DU’RITE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., a Florida corporation, Appellant, v. Arthur KOENIG and Linda Jean Koenig, his wife, Appellees.

No. 73-835.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 28, 1973.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Broward County; Thomas J. Reddick, Jr., Judge.

Appeal dismissed.