alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 30 (Thursday, February 13, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 6813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3651]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences; Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    Name: Special Emphasis Panel in Geosciences (1756).
    Date and Time: Monday, March 3-Wednesday March 5, 1997; 8:30 
a.m.-5:00 p.m.
    Place: Room 730, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., 
Arlington, VA 22230.
    Type of Meeting: Closed.
    Contact Person: Dr. Michael R. Reeve, Section Head, Division of 
Ocean Sciences, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Room 
725, Arlington, VA 22230. Telephone: 703/306-1582.
    Purpose of Meeting: To provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate OCE's FY 1997 Faculty Early 
Career (CAREER) proposals as part of the selection process for 
awards.
    Reason for Closing: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), (4) and 
(6) of the Government in The Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 10, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-3651 Filed 2-12-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
#### R. L. F., a child, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-944.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 5, 1974.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 33 (Wednesday, February 19, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7440]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3983]


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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

AFIT Subcommittee of the Air University Board of Visitors; Notice 
of Meeting

    The Air Force Institute of Technology Subcommittee of the Air 
University Board of Visitors will hold an open meeting on March 2-4, 
1997, with the first business session beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the 
Commandant's Conference Room, Building 125, Wright-Patterson Air Force 
Base, Ohio.
    The purpose of the meeting is to give the Board an opportunity to 
review Air Force Institute of Technology's educational programs and to 
present to the Commandant a report of their findings and 
recommendations concerning these programs. There are five (5) seats at 
the meeting available for the public.
    For further information on this meeting, contact Ms. Beverly Houtz 
in the Directorate of Plans and Operations, Air Force Institute of 
Technology, (513) 255-5760.
Carolyn A. Lunsford,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-3983 Filed 2-18-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3910-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 249 (Tuesday, December 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 67872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-33938]


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

GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE


Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board

AGENCY: General Accounting Office.

ACTION: Notice of January meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. No. 92-463), as amended, notice is hereby given that the 
Federal Accounting Standards Advisory Board will hold a two day meeting 
on Thursday and Friday, January 22 and 23, 1998, from 9:00 A.M. to 4:00 
P.M. in Room 7C13 of the General Accounting Office building, 441 G St., 
N.W., Washington, D.C.
    The purpose of the meeting is to discuss the following issues: (1) 
Accounting for Loans and Loan Guarantees; (2) Accounting for Property 
and Plant Equipment; (3) Accounting for Social Insurance; and (4) the 
addition of new projects for 1998.
    Any interested person may attend the meeting as an observer. Board 
discussions and reviews are open to the public.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wendy Comes, Executive Director, 441 G St., N.W., Room 3B18, 
Washington, D.C. 20548, or call (202) 512-7350.

    Authority: Federal Advisory Committee Act. Pub. L. No. 92-463, 
Section 10(a)(2), 86 Stat. 770, 774 (1972) (current version at 5 
U.S.C. app. section 10(a)(2) (1988); 41 CFR 101-6.1015 (1990).

    Dated: December 23, 1997.
Wendy M. Comes,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 97-33938 Filed 12-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1610-01-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-7560

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

MICHAEL DEVON TRAPP,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge.

(CR-97-205)

Submitted: December 28, 2001 Decided: January 14, 2002

Before WIDENER, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Devon Trapp, Appellant Pro Se. S. David Schiller, OFFICE

OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Devon Trapp seeks to appeal the district court’s order

denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.

2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of

the district court. United States v. Trapp, No. CR-97-205 (E.D.

Va. Aug. 22, 2001). We dispense with oral argument because the

facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                  Certification of Chief Executive Officer (1)

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certification is being made to
accompany the Registrant's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
January 28, 2006:

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Del Global Technologies Corp. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended January 28, 2006 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Walter
F. Schneider, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss. 1350, adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 that to my knowledge:

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

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

                                           /s/ Walter F. Schneider
                                          -------------------------
                                          Name: Walter F. Schneider
                                          Title: Chief Executive Officer
                                          Date: March 14, 2006

   (1) A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has
       been provided to Del Global Technologies Corp. and will be retained by
       Del Global Technologies Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
       Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

       The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18
       U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of the Report or as a
       separate disclosure document.

                                       1
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 34 (Thursday, February 20, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7803]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4152]


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


NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION

Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications Systems; 
Notice of Meeting

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation announces the 
following meeting:

    NAME: Special Emphasis Panel in Electrical and Communications 
System (1196).
    DATE AND TIME: March 10, 1997; 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    PLACE: Room 330, National Science Foundation, 4201 Wilson 
Boulevard, Arlington, VA.
    TYPE OF MEETING: Closed.
    CONTACT PERSON: Dr. Virginia Ayres, Program Director, Physical 
Foundations of Enabling Technologies Division of Electrical and 
Communications Systems, NSF, 4201 Wilson Boulevard, Room 675, 
Arlington, VA 22230, Telephone: (703) 306-1339.
    PURPOSE: To provide advice and recommendations concerning 
proposals submitted to NSF for financial support.
    AGENDA: To review and evaluate research proposals as part of the 
selection process for awards.
    REASON FOR CLOSING: The proposals being reviewed include 
information of a proprietary or confidential nature, including 
technical information; financial data, such as salaries; and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
proposals. These matters are within exemptions 4 and 6 of 5 U.S.C. 
552b.(c)(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act.

    Dated: February 13, 1997.
Linda Allen-Benton,
Deputy Director, Division of Human Resource Management, Acting 
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-4152 Filed 2-19-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 32 (Tuesday, February 18, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-3850]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-367-000]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Informal Settlement 
Conference

February 11, 1997.
    Take notice that an informal settlement conference will be convened 
in this proceeding on Wednesday, February 19, 1997, at 10:00 a.m., and 
continue through Thursday, February 20, 1997, at the offices of the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC, for the purpose of exploring the possible settlement of 
the issues in the above-referenced proceeding.
    Any party, as defined by 18 CFR 385.102(c), or any participant, as 
defined by 18 CFR 385.102(b), is invited to attend. Persons wishing to 
become a party must move to intervene and receive intervenor status 
pursuant to the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 385.214).
    For additional information, please contact William J. Collins at 
(202) 208-0248.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-3850 Filed 2-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Linnus HARRISON, Petitioner, v. Louie L. WAINWRIGHT, Director, Division of Corrections, Respondent.

No. 70-873.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Nov. 9, 1970.

Habeas corpus denied.
EXHIBIT 21
                                                                      ----------




  Insilco Teoranta, an Ireland corporation
  Precision Cable Manufacturing Co., Inc., a Texas corporation
  Eyelets for Industry, Inc., a Connecticut Corporation
  Insilco Technologies, (UK), Ltd., a Northern Ireland corporation
  Precision Cable Mfg. Corp. de Mexico S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
  EFI Metal Forming, Inc., a Connecticut corporation
  T.A.T. Technology, a Canada corporation
  Insilco Healthcare Management Company, a Delaware corporation
  Signal Dominicana, S.A. a Dominican Republic corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems, (Japan), Inc., a Japan corporation
  Stewart Connector GmbH, a German corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems de Mexico, S.A. de C. V., a Mexico corporation
  Signal Caribe, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  Stewart Connector Systems, Inc., a Pennsylvania corporation
  Signal Transformer Co., Inc. a Delaware corporation
  InNet Technologies, Inc., a California corporation
  Suntex Technology Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
  Top East Corporation Limited, a Hong Kong corporation
  Insilco International Holding, Inc., a Delaware corporation
  Signal Transformer Mexicana, S.A. de C.V., a Mexico corporation
  Sempco, S.A. de C.V. a Mexico corporation
  Insilco Deutschland GmbH, a German corporation
  Insilco Technology (Canada) Corporation, a Canada corporation
#### SOUTHERN AMERICAN FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, a Corporation, Appellant, v. CAMBRIDGE HOTEL, INC., a Florida Corporation, Appellee.

No. 70-813.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 25, 1971.

Rehearing Denied June 16, 1971.

*536Spellman & Hartnett, Miami, for appellant.

Levine & Helman, Miami, for appellee.

Before CHARLES CARROLL, BARK-DULL and HENDRY, JJ.

HENDRY, Judge.

Appellant-defendant Southern American Fire Insurance Company seeks review of a final judgment entered after a non-jury trial upon appellee-plaintiff, Cambridge Hotel, Inc.’s complaint alleging a breach of a fire insurance contract. Cambridge Hotel, Inc. has also filed a cross-appeal.

Cambridge Hotel, Inc. held a policy issued by Southern American Fire Insurance Company for $115,000.00, representing 80% of value; 100% of value being $153,333.00. A fire occurred on the insured premises on February 14, 1968. The insurer rejected the proof of loss alleging damages of $21,085.22 filed by Cambridge Hotel, the insured.

The policy contained a legend that “this represents 75% of total coverage in force.” A deductible provision in the endorsement was for “5% of the total amount of coverage in force.”

The trial court ruled that the “75% of total coverage in force” clause was unambiguous, not in conflict with other policy provisions, and was binding upon the parties. In the language of the trial judge, “The total deductible to be applied, therefore, using the formula of ‘5% of the total amount of coverage in force’, as provided in the policy endorsement is based on the total coverage that should have been in force, even if there admittedly was no other insurance policy in force either at the inception of the subject policy or at the time of the loss or $153,333.00, and the applicable deductible would therefore be $7,-666.66.”

After evaluating the testimony as to damages, the trial court found the amount of damages for the partial loss to be $23,-300.00. As the policy covered only 75% of the damage and loss, the insurance company was found liable for $17,475.00 less the 5% deductible of $7,666.66, which left $9,-809.00, plus interest at 6% from 60 days after the proof of loss was filed.

Appellant insurance company contends on appeal that the court erred in: (a) failing to deduct depreciation of the property from the cost of replacement, which cost was not based upon that “of like kind and quality” specified in the contract, and (b) awarding attorney’s fees where there was a contingent fee agreement.

The cross-appellant, Cambridge Hotel contends that the court erred in finding that the provision “This represents 75% of the total coverage in force” limited the insured to 75% of its loss.

We have considered the briefs and record and have heard oral argument. We express the view that the trial court correctly computed the damages under the terms of the instant contract that is, 75% of the damages, less the 5% deductible, plus interest. Depreciation was not deducted, and correctly so, under the contract provisions. Attorneys fees were properly awarded.

Therefore the judgment appealed from is affirmed.

Affirmed.
Document

Exhibit 10.1.5

SUPPLEMENT TO SUBSIDIARY GUARANTY
Reference is hereby made to the Amended and Restated Subsidiary Guaranty (as the same may be amended, restated, supplemented or otherwise modified from time to time, the “Guaranty”) made as of January 2, 2020, by each of the Material Domestic Subsidiaries of Arcosa, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the “Borrower”) listed on the signature pages thereto (each, an “Initial Guarantor” and together with any additional Subsidiaries of the Borrower, which become parties thereto and together with the undersigned, the “Guarantors”) in favor of the Administrative Agent, for the ratable benefit of the Holders of Guaranteed Obligations, under the Credit Agreement.  Capitalized terms used herein and not defined herein shall have the meanings given to them in the Guaranty.  By its execution below, the undersigned StonePoint Ultimate Holding, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the “New Guarantor”), agrees to become, and does hereby become, a Guarantor under the Guaranty and agrees to be bound by such Guaranty as if originally a party thereto.  By its execution below, the undersigned represents and warrants as to itself that all of the representations and warranties contained in Section 2 of the Guaranty are true and correct in all respects as of the date hereof.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, New Guarantor has executed and delivered this Annex I counterpart to the Guaranty as of this 31st day of August, 2021.
STONEPOINT ULTIMATE HOLDING, LLC


By:      /s/ Gail M. Peck            
Gail M. Peck
Vice President
#### In re David DUCHAC v. STATE. Ex parte David Duchac.

SC 709.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 28, 1974.

*140Elno A. Smith, Jr., Montgomery, for petitioner.

No brief for the state, respondent.

BLOODWORTH, Justice.

We deny this petition for the sole reason that it is insufficient in that it does not comply with the provisions of our Rule 39, as interpreted by our case law. It merely makes the bare-bones assertion of a “conflict with a prior decision of this Court on the same point of law.” There is no averment as to what portion of the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeals conflicts with which decision of our Court. Nor are we advised with what part of a decision of our Court there is a conflict.

Again, we point out as we have heretofore done, first on November 7, 1969, in Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General (In Re Clarence Stallworth v. State of Alabama), 28S Ala. 72, 229 So.2d 27, viz.:

> “There is no set or magic language to use in petitioning this court for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Criminal Appeals or the Court of Civil Appeals. However, since this procedure is new, we set out acceptable language in each of the five instances * * *

> “(4) The decision of the Court of (Criminal, Civil) Appeals is in conflict with a prior decision of the Supreme Court on the same point of law. In its opinion, the appellate court stated: (copy of the alleged conflicting holding.)

> In the case of_v._, (citation) the Supreme Court stated: (copy). These statements of the law are in conflict and the Court of (Criminal, Civil) Appeals erred in failing to follow the decision of the Supreme Court on the same point of law.”

Ex parte State ex rel. Attorney General, 28S Ala. 72, 229 So.2d 27 (1969).

Writ denied.

HEFLIN, C. J., and COLEMAN, Mc-CALL and JONES, JJ., concur.
#### Leslie D. HORTON, Petitioner, v. Honorable John G. HODGES, Circuit Judge, Hillsborough County Circuit Court, Thirteenth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Respondent.

No. 73-149.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

March 23, 1973.

Mandamus dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND CONSOLIDATED
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997
AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,130
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   18,615
<ALLOWANCES>                                       146
<INVENTORY>                                     13,119
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                36,201
<PP&E>                                          26,108
<DEPRECIATION>                                  15,186
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  54,133
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,118
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                      32,647
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    54,133
<SALES>                                         42,359
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                42,359
<CGS>                                           32,125
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   32,125
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,044
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   (85)
<INCOME-TAX>                                      (33)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               (52)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      (52)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.02)
        

</TABLE>
No. D-2235.

#### In re Disbarment of Hollingsworth.

Wayne B. Hollingsworth, of Naples, Fla., is suspended from the practice of law in this Court, and a rule will issue, returnable within 40 days, requiring him to show cause why he should not be disbarred from the practice of law in this Court.