alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6786]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3620]


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


FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Formations of, Acquisitions by, and Mergers of Bank Holding 
Companies

    The companies listed in this notice have applied to the Board for 
approval, pursuant to the Bank Holding Company Act of 1956 (12 U.S.C. 
1841 et seq.) (BHC Act), Regulation Y (12 CFR Part 225), and all other 
applicable statutes and regulations to become a bank holding company 
and/or to acquire the assets or the ownership of, control of, or the 
power to vote shares of a bank or bank holding company and all of the 
banks and nonbanking companies owned by the bank holding company, 
including the companies listed below.
    The applications listed below, as well as other related filings 
required by the Board, are available for immediate inspection at the 
Federal Reserve Bank indicated. Once the application has been accepted 
for processing, it will also be available for inspection at the offices 
of the Board of Governors. Interested persons may express their views 
in writing on the standards enumerated in the BHC Act (12 U.S.C. 
1842(c)). If the proposal also involves the acquisition of a nonbanking 
company, the review also includes whether the acquisition of the 
nonbanking company complies with the standards in section 4 of the BHC 
Act, including whether the acquisition of the nonbanking company can 
``reasonably be expected to produce benefits to the public, such as 
greater convenience, increased competition, or gains in efficiency, 
that outweigh possible adverse effects, such as undue concentration of 
resources, decreased or unfair competition, conflicts of interests, or 
unsound banking practices'' (12 U.S.C.      1843). Unless otherwise 
noted, nonbanking activities will be conducted throughout the United 
States.
    Unless otherwise noted, comments regarding each of these 
applications must be received at the Reserve Bank indicated or the 
offices of the Board of Governors not later than March 10, 1997.
    A. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Randall C. Sumner, Vice 
President) 411 Locust Street, St. Louis, Missouri 63102-2034:
    1. Southeast Arkansas Bank Corporation, Lake Village, Arkansas; to 
acquire 95.2 percent of the voting shares of Jefferson County Bank of 
Fayette, Fayette, Mississippi.

    Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, February 10, 
1997.
Jennifer J. Johnson,
Deputy Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 97-3620 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-F
#### Richard Clemmons MORRISON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-23.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Oct. 13, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 14, 1972.

PER CURIAM.

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 January 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 Edward Kroning, 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: March 16, 2007


      By: Edward Kroning
          ---------------------
          Edward Kroning, CFO

      Dated: March 16, 2007


                                 Page 21 of 21
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 29 (Wednesday, February 12, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6553]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3493]



[[Page 6553]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Geological Survey


Technology Transfer Act of 1986

agency: United States Geological Survey.

Action: Notice of proposed cooperative research and development 
agreement (CRADA).

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

summary: The United States Geological Survey (USGS) is contemplating 
entering into a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA) 
with Heska to evaluate a vaccine for plague (Yersinia pestia) for use 
in domestic and wild animals.

Inquiries: If any other parties are interested in participating with 
the USGS in a CRADA to test vaccines that have developed for plague 
(Yersinia pestia), please contact: Dr. Christopher Brand, National 
Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Rd., Madison, WI 53711: (608) 
271-4640.

supplementary information: This notice is to meet the USGS requirement 
stipulated in the Survey Manual. This notice will close within 30 days 
of publication in the Federal Register, responses from interested 
parties will be considered and the cooperative agreement will be 
completed and immediately initiated.

    Dated: February 4, 1997.
Dennis B. Fenn,
Chief Biologist.
[FR Doc. 97-3493 Filed 2-11-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-13-M
#### William R. GRAINGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. M-394.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

April 7, 1970.

Robert P. Miller, Public Defender, for appellant.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., and J. Christian Meffert, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

WIGGINTON, Judge.

Defendant has appealed a judgment of conviction based upon his plea of guilty to the charge of breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor. Based upon this judgment the court sentenced appellant to imprisonment for a period of four years and committed him to the custody of the Division of Corrections. The sole point on appeal questions the legality of the sentence.

The statute under which appellant was charged with the crime for which he pleaded guilty is as follows:

> “Whoever breaks and enters or enters without breaking any dwelling or store house, or any building, ship, vessel, or railroad car with intent to commit a misdemeanor, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail not exceeding five years, or by fine not exceeding five hundred dollars.”1

Appellant asserts that a conviction under the foregoing statute is a misdemeanor only and therefore the sentence which places him in the custody of the Division of Corrections for imprisonment in the state prison is illegal and should be set aside. Appellant supports his position by reference to the unreported decision of Brown v. State, Case 2481, opinion filed October 22, 1969. While it is true that in this case the Fourth District Court of Appeal held that a conviction for breaking and entering with intent to commit a misdemeanor as proscribed by F.S. Section 810.05, F.S.A., was only a misdemeanor and not a felony, the court subsequently granted rehearing in the case and reversed its position, ultimately holding that such *278an offense is a felony.2 The Fourth District Court of Appeal’s decision in Brown followed the decision previously rendered by the Supreme Court of Florida in the case of State v. Fitz.3 The judgment appealed is accordingly affirmed.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J., and RAWLS, J., concur.

1

. F.S. § 810.05, F.S.A.

2

. Brown v. State, Case 2481 (Fla.App.1970) Opinion filed February 12, 1970, 232 So.2d 55.

3

. State v. Fitz, (Fla.1967) 202 So.2d 841.
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7298 

To extend the period for obligations or expenditures for amounts obligated 

for the National Disaster Resilience competition. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JUNE 22, 2020 

Mr. SCOTT of Virginia (for himself, Mrs. LURIA, Mr. ARMSTRONG, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. SIRES, Mr. MCEACHIN, Ms. WEXTON, and Mr. 

GOTTHEIMER) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Financial Services, and in addition to the Committee on 

the Budget, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, 

in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To extend the period for obligations or expenditures for 

amounts obligated for the National Disaster Resilience 

competition. 

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

3 SECTION 1. EXTENSION FOR USE OF AMOUNTS OBLIGATED 

4 FOR NATIONAL DISASTER RESILIENCE COM5 PETITION. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Funds made available in title VIII 

7 of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 (division 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7298 IH

1 A of Public Law 113–2) under the heading ‘‘COMMUNITY

2 DEVELOPMENT FUND’’ under the heading ‘‘DEPARTMENT

3 OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT’’ that were allo4 cated pursuant to the National Disaster Resilience com5 petition and that were available for obligation through fis6 cal year 2017 and for expenditure through fiscal year 

7 2022 are to remain available through fiscal year 2025 for 

8 the liquidation of valid obligations incurred in fiscal years 

9 2014 through 2017. 

10 (b) EMERGENCY REQUIREMENT.—The amount de11 scribed in subsection (a) is designated by Congress as 

12 being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 

13 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the Balanced Budget and Emergency 

14 Deficit Control Act of 1985 (2 U.S.C. 901(b)(2)(A)(i)). 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-40309

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JESUS BARRON SOLIS,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:09-CR-2691-1

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, GARZA, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jesus Barron Solis

has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with Anders

v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Barron Solis has not filed a response. Our

independent review of the record and counsel’s brief discloses no nonfrivolous

issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to withdraw is

GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5TH CIR. R. 42.2.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

February 15, 2011

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Pursuant to 5TH CIR. 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 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

Case: 10-40309 Document: 00511382199 Page: 1 Date Filed: 02/15/2011
C e n t u ry® Single Phase • Fractional and Integral Horsepower Motors

www.aosmithmotors.com 1 9

Full Load Service Stock Overload Insul. “C”

HP RPM Volts Amps Factor Frame Number Alternate Protector Class Dim. Notes

1⁄4 1800 115/230 3.6/1.8 1.00 48 C198 None B 10.42 1,3

115/208-230 3.8/2.0-1.9 1.15 56 C664 Auto B 11.07 3

1200 115/208-230 5.0/2.4-2.5 1.15 56 C026 None B 11.07 3

1⁄3 3600 115/208-230 4.8/2.5-2.4 1.15 56 B412 None B 10.07 3

1800 115/230 4.6/2.3 1.00 48 C150 None B 10.87 3

115/230 4.6/2.3 1.00 48 C151 Auto B 10.87 3

115/208-230 5.2/2.5-2.6 1.15 56 C220 None B 11.07 3

115/208-230 5.2/2.5-2.6 1.15 56 C223 Auto B 11.07 3

115/208-230 5.2/2.5-2.6 1.15 56 C225 Manual A 11.07 3

1200 115/208-230 6.0/3.0-3.0 1.15 56 C027 None B 11.44 3

1⁄2 3600 115/208-230 7.4/3.7-3.7 1.15 56 B621 None B 10.19 4

1800 115/208-230 7.2/3.5-3.6 1.15 56 C612 None B 12.24 4

115/208-230 7.2/3.5-3.6 1.15 56 C613 Auto A 12.24 4

115/208-230 7.2/3.5-3.6 1.15 56 C521 Manual A 12.24 4

1200 115/208-230 8.4/4.0-4.2 1.15 56 C322 None B 13.36 4

3⁄4 3600 208-230/115 5.0-4.6/9.2 1.15 56 B664 None B 12.24 4

1800 208-230/115 5.4-5.2/10.4 1.15 56 C669 None B 12.61 4

208-230/115 5.4-5.2/10.4 1.15 56 C671 Auto B 12.61 4

208-230/115 5.4-5.2/10.4 1.15 56 C520 Manual B 12.61 4

1 3600 208-230/115 6.1-6.0/12.0 1.15 56 B674 None B 11.07 4

208-230/115 6.1-6.0/12.0 1.15 56 B695 Manual B 12.21 4

1800 208-230/115 7.2-7.5/15.0 1.15 56 C683 None B 13.40 4

208-230/115 6.2-6.0/12.0 1.15 56 C685 Auto B 13.36 4

208-230/115 6.2-6.0/12.0 1.15 56 C620 Manual B 13.36 4

208-230/115 7.7-7.5/15.0 1.15 143T K100 None B 13.86 4

1-1⁄2 3600 208-230/115 8.3-8.0/16.0 1.15 56 B762 None B 12.61 4

208-230/115 8.3-8.0/16.0 1.15 56 B696 Manual B 12.59 4

1800 208-230/115 7.7-7.5/15.0 1.15 56H C693 None B 13.86 2,4

208-230/115 7.8-7.5/15.0 1.15 56H C686 Auto B 13.86 2,4

208-230/115 7.7-7.5/15.0 1.15 145T K101 None B 15.11 2,4

2 3600 208-230/115 9.1-8.4/16.6 1.15 56 C802 None B 14.36 2,4

208-230/115 9.1-8.4/16.6 1.15 56H B697 Manual B 14.36 2,4

1800 115/230 24.0/12.0 1.00 182T K200 None F 18.02 4

3 3600 115/230 30.0/15.0 1.00 184T K222 None B 17.92 4

1800 115/230 32.0/16.0 1.00 184T K203 None F 15.91 4

5 3600 230 20.2 1.00 184T K223 None F 17.92 2,4

1800 230/460 23.0/11.5 1.00 213T K304 None B 17.62 2,4

7-1⁄2 3600 230 33.0 1.00 215T K314 None B 19.13 2,4

1800 230/460 34.0/17.0 1.00 215T K305 None B 19.13 2,4

10 3600 230 40.0 1.00 215T K315 None B 19.13 2,4

1800 230/460 39.0/19.5 1.00 215T K313 None B 19.13 2,4

Capacitor Start • Enclosed • Rigid Base • 3600, 1800 & 1200 RPM 

•

1

⁄4 thru 10 HP

Features: Ball Bearing • 40°C Ambient • Class A, B or F Insulated • Reversible • 60 Hz

Applications: Compressors, conveyors, machine tools, pumps, air conditioning. 

Special service motors: air circulating fans, evaporative coolers, home workshops.

K100

Notes:

1. This motor is rated for operation on 60 or 50 Hz power, full load amps listed at 60 Hz

2. $ Energy Efficient two value capacitor start capacitor run motor

3. Totally enclosed non-ventilated (TENV)

4. Totally enclosed fan cooled (TEFC)

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

$

EERE-2007-BT-STD-0007 COMMENT 30
This document is protected Attorney Work Product requested by counsel in anticipation of litigation. Do not disclose without consent of counsel. 

United Taconite 

Fairlane Plant 

Forbes, Minnesota 

Barr Engineering Co. 

July 29, 2004 

TABLE1 7 

SULFUR MASS BALANCE AND REMOVAL DETERMINATION 

Parameter 

Test Date 

Test Period 

. Waste Gas Stack 2A \ Waste Gas Stack 2B ··-· ----·--·-·---------.. -- --- -- -~-- ::-=::-=-,-- -1 

6/9/2004 ' 6/9/2004 -------- --- ~---:-=-1643-2017 0920-1440 

* Fuel Consumption Rate, TPH 7.70 

** Fuel Moisture Content 1.33 

* Greenball Feed Rate, L TPH (to Grate) 

* Greenball Moisture Content, % 

-- 605 - _ __ _ j_ ____ 5 __ 94 _ - ---

9.74 ·--·------- ·- ·- -· -· .. ·~·-··- · ----- ·-··-···-·-·--·------- Taconite Production Rate, LTPH 513 . 512 

**Fuel sulfLii--corltenT.% ;rry---- - ------ -- ----------· 2 ·:37 -· - - - - -----I 

·:_t~ee~~~-~~ ~u~~ ~~~~~% ~!Y =----= = = ~--~ ~ :-~= = ~ ~~ = o~:-:=----- -----J **Taconite Sulfur Content, %dry 0.002 

Totalsliifur ni:>u ~lE 1 > - - --- ·-_=_ = ==--= _-_-:_-_·_--.:3-=- 9-=7·-------l 

Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets, lb/hr (2) 23 ; 23 

Sulfur Loading to Scrubbers, lb/hr (3) 374 i 374 

Sulfur Dioxide Loading to Scrubbers, lb/hr (4) ; 748 i 748 

Average Sulfur Dioxide Loading Rate to Scrubbers, i 7 48 

Sulfur Dioxide Emission Rate from Scrubbers, lb/hr , 633 ----------~~--------1 Sulfur Dioxide Removal Efficiency,% 15.4 

* From Process Data 

**Laboratory Results 

*** Corrected Fuel Tonnage 

(1) Sulfur Input, lb/hr = [(Greenball Feedrate to Kiln,L TPH x 2240 lb/L T) x (1-Greenball Moisture 

Content, %/1 00) x (Greenball Sulfur Content, %/1 00)] + [(Fuel consumption Rate, TPH x 2000 

lb/ton) x (1-Fuel Moisture Content, %/100) x (Fuel Sulfur Content,%/100) 

(2) Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets = (Fired Pellet Production Rate, L TPH x 2240 lb/L T) x ( Fired 

Pellet Sulfur Content, %/1 00) 

(3) Sulfur Loading Rates to Scrubbers= (Sulfur Input- Sulfur Output with Fired Pellets) 

(4) S02 Loading Rate to Scrubbers = Sulfur Loading Rate, lb/hr x lb mol/32 lb sulfur x 64 lb S02/It 

(5) As Determined from EPA Method 6C Stack Tests (combined average emissions from both sta
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 12.1


                               Dean Foods Company

                Computation of Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                                  (In Millions)



                                                 39 Weeks Ended
                                                February 25, 2001
                                                -----------------

          Income before taxes                        $  118.1
                                                     --------

          Fixed charges:
               Interest expense                          55.7
               Portion of rentals (33%)                  12.6
                                                     --------

               Total fixed charges                       68.3
                                                     --------

          Earnings before taxes and fixed charges    $  186.4
                                                     ========

          Ratio of earnings to fixed charges              2.7
                                                     ========
#### Steven Nur AHMED, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 01-17425.

D.C. No. CV-01-00002-CW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Aug. 12, 2002.*

Decided Aug. 19, 2002.

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

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Therefore, appellant’s request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

Steven Nur Ahmed appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of the defendants in his civil rights action alleging violations of the First and Fifth Amendments. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815-lb (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly held sovereign immunity barred Ahmed’s action because he failed to demonstrate a waiver of immunity. *See Cato v. United States,*70 F.3d 1103, 1107 (9th Cir.1995).

Ahmed’s contention that 28 U.S.C. § 1346 confers jurisdiction lacks merit because this section vests exclusive jurisdiction for claims involving more than $10,000 with the Court of Federal Claims. *See*28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2). Similarly, the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2680, bars Ahmed’s action because the issuance of a limited duration passport is an act that involves an element of judgment or choice. *See Gager v. United States,*149 F.3d 918, 920 (9th Cir.1998).

Ahmed’s contention regarding judicial bias lacks merit because he failed to present any evidence that the district judge relied upon knowledge acquired outside the judicial proceedings that influenced in any way her decision, or demonstrated antagonism that would render a fair judgment impossible. *See Liteky v. United States,*510 U.S. 540, 556, 114 S.Ct. 1147, 127 L.Ed.2d 474 (1994).

*874Ahmed’s remaining contentions lack merit.

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 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

November 26, 2019

No. 04-19-00544-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.V.T., A CHILD,

From the 293rd Judicial District Court, Maverick County, Texas

Trial Court No. 141130350MCV

Honorable Maribel Flores, Judge Presiding

O R D E R

The Appellant’s Unopposed Second Motion to Extend Time to File Brief is hereby 

GRANTED. Time is extended to December 27, 2019. 

_________________________________

Irene Rios, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 26th day of November, 2019.

___________________________________

MICHAEL A. CRUZ,

Clerk of Court
#### Charles W. WIDENER and Richard Welts, Appellants, v. GULF COAST HOLDING CO., Appellee.

No. 73-530.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 4, 1973.

Appeal quashed.
#### Frank TURNER, Appellant, v. The STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-1044.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Jan. 22, 1974.

Frank Turner, in pro per.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., for appel-lee.

Before BARKDULL, C. J., and PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

This court, proceeding in the manner outlined and recommended by the Supreme Court of the United States in Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 744, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493, having deferred ruling on a motion of the public defender to withdraw as counsel for the indigent defendant-appellant and having furnished appellant with a copy of the public defender’s memorandum brief, and having allowed the appellant a reasonable specified time within which to raise any points that he chose in support of his appeal, and the appellant having failed to respond thereto, on consideration thereof upon full examination of the proceedings, we conclude that the appeal is wholly frivolous. Whereupon, the public defender’s said motion to withdraw is granted, and the order or judgment appealed is hereby affirmed.