alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 35 (Friday, February 21, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 7982]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4297]


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


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 97-57, RM-9016]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Hope, ND

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Vixon 
Valley Broadcasting seeking the allotment of Channel 284A to Hope, 
North Dakota, as the community's first local aural service. Channel 
284A can be allotted to Hope in compliance with the Commission's 
minimum distance separation requirements, without the imposition of a 
site restriction, at coordinates 47-19-24 NL; 97-43-00 WL. Canadian 
concurrence in the allotment is required because the community is 
located within 320 kilometers (200 miles) of the U.S.-Canadian border.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 7, 1997, and reply 
comments on or before April 22, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Victor 
A. Michael, Jr., President, Vixon Valley Broadcasting, c/o Magic City 
Media, 1912 Capitol Avenue, Suite 300, Cheyenne, WY 82001 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 97-57, adopted February 
7, 1997, and released February 14, 1997. The full text of this 
Commission decision is available for inspection and copying during 
normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M 
Street, NW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite 
140, Washington, DC 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 97-4297 Filed 2-20-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 210 (Tuesday, October 30, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 65760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-26673]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 8077]

U.S. National Commission for UNESCO; Notice of Meeting

    The U.S. National Commission for UNESCO will host its Annual 
Meeting on Monday, November 26, from 10:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m. E.S.T. 
The meeting will convene in room 309 of the George Washington 
University Marvin Center at 800 21st Street NW., Washington, DC.
    The meeting will have a series of speakers offering information 
about UNESCO and the current state of United States engagement with the 
Organization. The meeting will also feature a public comment session, 
limited to approximately 15 minutes in total, with two minutes allowed 
per speaker.
    For more information or to arrange to participate in this meeting 
(including requests for reasonable accommodation), individuals should 
contact Francine Randolph, Office of UNESCO Affairs, Washington, DC 
20037. Telephone (202) 663-0026; Fax (202) 663-0035.
    The National Commission may be contacted via email at 
DCUNESCO@state.gov, or via phone at (202) 663-0026. Its Web site can be 
accessed at: http://www.state.gov/p/io/unesco/.

    Dated: October 19, 2012.
Kelly O. Siekman,
National Commission for UNESCO, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2012-26673 Filed 10-29-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-19-P
```
Exhibit-32.1 -- Certification per Sarbanes-Oxley Act (Section 906)

I am the Chief Executive Officer of The Banker's Store, Inc., a New York
corporation (the "Company").  I am delivering this certificate in connection
with the Form 10-QSB/A of the Company for the fiscal quarter ended
August 31, 2008 and filed with the U. S. Securities and Exchange
Commission ("Form 10-QSB/A").

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I hereby certify that, to the best of my
knowledge, the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section
13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Form 10-QSB/A fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

Dated:  July 22, 2009
        --------------
                                           /s/ Thomas C. Cook
                                           ---------------------------
                                               Thomas C. Cook
                                               Chief Executive Officer


<PAGE>
#### Larry LAWSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 73-236.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 5, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
#### William McAFEE, as personal representative of the Estate of Kathleen Marie McAfee, Deceased, Plaintiff, v. Edward R. KIRKLAND, Jr., and Cincinnati Insurance Company, a Foreign Corporation, Defendants.

No. 78-306.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Sept. 20, 1978.

*696Jacqueline R. Griffin of Wells, Gattis *&*Hallowes, P. A., Orlando, for plaintiff.

J. David Walsh of Gosney, Cameron & Parsons, Daytona Beach, for defendants-Edward R. Kirkland, Jr., and Cincinnati Ins. Co.

GREEN, OLIVER L., Associate Judge.

> We are presented the following question: Whether, Plaintiff, WILLIAM C. McAF-EE, as personal representative of the Estate of KATHLEEN MARIE McAFEE, may assert a claim for mental pain and suffering of the parents of KATHLEEN MARIE McAFEE, occasioned by the wrongful death of their 19 year old dependent daughter as permitted by the provisions of Florida Statute 768.18(2) in effect at the time the civil action was filed in October of 1977; or whether such claim is precluded by the provisions of Florida Statute 768.18(2) in effect at the time the accident occurred in June of 1976.

We answer the question in the negative, i. e., plaintiff, William C. McAfee, as personal representative of the Estate of Kathleen Marie McAfee is precluded from asserting a claim under the stated circumstances.

The able judge below answered the question differently, holding that the claim was sustainable because of legal concepts set forth in the cases of *Florida East Coast Railway Company v. Rouse,*194 So.2d 260 (Fla.1967), and *Ingerson*v. *State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company,*272 So.2d 862 (Fla.3d DCA 1973).

The trial judge apparently failed to take into account Section 45, Chapter 77-468, Laws of Florida, which provides that Section 40 of that Act, amending Subsection 2 of Section 768.18, Florida Statutes, was to take effect July 1, 1977 and apply “to all claims arising out of accidents occurring after said date.”

The above question certified in this appeal is found to be controlled by Section 45, Chapter 77-468, Laws of Florida, and therefore the question is answered in the negative.

BERANEK, J., concurs.

DAUKSCH, J., concurs in conclusion only.
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">Yvonne Murphy, Plaintiff-Appellant,<br><br>against<br><br>Bronx Park Phase I Preservation LLC, Defendant-Respondent.</font></b></div><br><br><p>Plaintiff appeals from an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Bronx County (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered December 21, 2016, after a nonjury trial, which granted defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of plaintiff's case.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Order (Joseph E. Capella, J.), entered December 21, 2016, affirmed, without costs.</p><p>Even affording plaintiff-tenant every favorable inference that reasonably could be drawn from the evidence adduced at trial (<i>see Szczerbiak v Pilat</i>, 90 NY2d 553, 556 [1997]), we agree that she failed to establish a prima facie case against defendant-landlord for property damages arising from conditions inside plaintiff's apartment. As the trial court noted, plaintiff could not establish through admissible evidence the existence of bedbugs, water leaks or mold inside her apartment that defendant-landlord caused or failed to remedy after notice (<a href="../2006/2006_09185.htm" target="_blank"><i>see generally Lau Tung Tsui v New Charlie Tseng Corp</i>., 35 AD3d 390</a> [2006]). In any event, plaintiff failed to proffer competent proof of damages (<a href="../2004/2004_50798.htm" target="_blank"><i>see Correa v Midtown Moving</i>, 4 Misc 3d 135</a>[A], 2004 NY Slip Op 50798[U] [App Term, 1st Dept 2004]).</p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur <br>Decision Date: December 20, 2017<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
#### Larry PERKINS, Appellant, v. LA GORCE COUNTRY CLUB et al., Appellees.

No. 76-1694.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Sept. 20, 1977.

Tobias Simon; Elizabeth duFresne and Jennifer Hurst, Miami, for appellant.

Robert C. Ward, Miami Beach, Horton, Perse & Ginsberg and Mallory H. Horton, Miami, Katz & Rosen, Coconut Grove, Russell C. Gay, North Bay Village, Adams, George, Lee & Schulte, Dixon, Dixon, Lane & Mitchell, Wakefield, Hewitt & Webster, Blackwell, Walker, Gray, Powers, Flick & Hoehl, Miami, for appellees.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and HAVER-FIELD and HUBBART, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *State ex rel. Randall v. Miami Coin Club,*88 So.2d 293 (Fla.1956); *State ex rel. Barfield*v. *Florida Yacht Club,*106 So.2d 207 (Fla. 1st DCA 1958); Section 617.10, Florida Statutes (1975).
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA F OURTH D ISTRICT

SCOTT CHRISTOPHER NEAL , Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA , Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 1313

[ March 31, 2022 ]

Appeal from the C ounty Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Leonard Hanser , Judge; L.T. Case No. 50

- 2020

- MM

004538

- AXXX

- SB

.
Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Paul Edward Petillo, Assistant Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and MaryEllen M.
Fa rrell, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.
Affirmed.

W ARNER , L EVINE and K LINGENSMITH , JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
<PAGE>

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                          CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                               BJ SERVICES COMPANY


         BJ SERVICES COMPANY, a corporation organized and existing under and by
virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware (the "DGCL"),
DOES HEREBY CERTIFY THAT:

         FIRST: At a meeting of the Board of Directors of the corporation a
resolution was adopted proposing and declaring advisable the following amendment
to the Certificate of Incorporation of the corporation, as amended, and
directing that the amendment be considered at the next annual meeting of
stockholders of the corporation:

                  RESOLVED, that Article FOURTH of the Certificate of
         Incorporation be amended to read as follows:

                           "FOURTH: The total number of shares of stock which
                  the Corporation shall have the authority to issue is
                  165,000,000 shares of capital stock, consisting of 5,000,000
                  shares of preferred stock, par value $1.00 per share (the
                  "Preferred Stock"), and 160,000,000 shares of common stock,
                  par value $0.10 per share (the "Common Stock").

                           The designations, powers and preferences and
                  relative, participating, optional or other special rights and
                  qualifications, limitations or restrictions of the Preferred
                  Stock shall be established by resolution of the Board of
                  Directors pursuant to Section 151 of the General Corporation
                  Law of the State of Delaware."

         SECOND: Thereafter, the annual meeting of stockholders was duly called
and held upon notice in accordance with Section 222 of the DGCL, at which
meeting the necessary number of shares as required by statute were voted in
favor of the amendment.

         THIRD: The amendment was duly adopted in accordance with the provisions
of Section 242 of the DGCL.


<PAGE>

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, BJ Services Company has caused this certificate to
be signed by its authorized officer this 22nd day of January, 1998.

                                      BJ Services Company

                                      By:    /s/ Margaret B. Shannon
                                             ---------------------------------
                                      Name:  Margaret B. Shannon
                                      Title: Vice President, General Counsel
                                             and Secretary
REVISED, December 30, 2014

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-40162

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

JORGE ANTONIO IZQUIERDO-RODRIGUEZ,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 5:13-CR-661-1

Before PRADO, OWEN, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Jorge Antonio 

Izquierdo-Rodriguez has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and United States 

v. Flores, 632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir. 2011). Izquierdo-Rodriguez has not filed a 

response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the 

* 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.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

December 29, 2014

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 

 Case: 14-40162 Document: 00512884658 Page: 1 Date Filed: 12/30/2014
No. 14-40162

record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s assessment that the appeal 

presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. 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.

2

 Case: 14-40162 Document: 00512884658 Page: 2 Date Filed: 12/30/2014
#### The State, ex rel. Thompson, *v.*Conn, Supt. of Insurance, Dept. of Commerce.

*Mandamus*— Reinstatement *of insurance solicitor’s license*— Moot *question*— License *expired ~by statutory limitation.*

(No. 18225

Decided March 25, 1924.)

In Mandamus.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*Mr. Francis M. Thompson*and *Mr. Louis D. Johnson,*for relator.

*Mr. C. C. Crabbe,*attorney general, and *Mr. C. C. Younger,*for respondent.

By the Court.

Relator, prior to June 23, 1923, was a solicitor of insurance, duly licensed by the state superintendent of insurance, and on that date his license was revoked. Thereafter, on November 24, 1923, he filed his petition in mandamus in this court, alleging certain grounds for reinstatement, and the cause came on for hearing on March 11, 1924.

Our attention has been called to Section 644, General Code, which, among other things, provides :

> “Unless revoked by the superintendent of insurance, or unless the company by written notice to the superintendent cancels the agent’s authority to act for it, such license and any other license issued to an agent or any renewal thereof shall expire on the last day of February next after its issue.”

*622Section 644-1, General Code, among other provisions, contains the following:

> “Unless revoked by the superintendent of insurance, or unless the agent by written notice to the superintendent cancels the solicitor’s authority as such solicitor, such license and any other license issued to a solicitor or any renewal thereof shall expire on the last day of February next after its issue.”

The license of relator as such solicitor having expired by statutory limitation, an inquiry into the alleged reasons why relator should be reinstated for the remainder of the term of his said license would be vain and futile; it not being within. the power of the court to grant any relief. The petition will therefore be dismissed at relator’s costs on the authority of *Miner*v. *Witt, City Clerk,*82 Ohio St., 237, 92 N. E., 21.

*Petition dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Robinson, Jones, Matthias, Day and Allen, JJ., concur.
No. 10392.

#### Dirlam *v.*The Baltimore & Ohio Railroad Co.

Decided April 7, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Richland county.

*Mr. Darius Diflam,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cummings, McBride & Wolfe,*for defendant in error.

Judgment reversed and judgment for plaintiff in error.

Si-iauck, C. J., Price, Crew, -Summers, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11300

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JUAN CARLOS PLANCARTE,

Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:96-CR-60-1-A

- - - - - - - - - -

June 17, 1997

Before SMITH, STEWART, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Juan Carlos Plancarte has filed

a brief as required by Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967),

and we have independently reviewed counsel's brief and the

record, and found no nonfrivolous issue. Accordingly, counsel is

excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS

DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
No. 10591.

#### Williams *v.*Brown et al.

Decided May 12, 1908.

Error to the Circuit Court of Huron county.

*Mr. Stephen M. Young,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. C. L. Kennan*and *Messrs. C. P., L. W. & R. D. Wickham,*for defendants in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
No. 10511.

#### The Central Manufacturers Mutual Insurance Co. *v.*The Semler Milling *392Co.

Decided March 3, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Butler county.

*Mr. J. W. Mooney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Aaron Wesco; Mr. J. L. Kohl*and *Mr. Hartwell Cabell,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
**REGULATORY EVALUATION**

**Directorate Identifier:** 201 3

- NM

- 176

- AD

**Executive Order 12866:** Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:** Is the AD significant? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Regulatory Flexibility Act:** Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? YES ( ) explain NO (X) **Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:** This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. I s it appropriate t o include specific requirements for aircraft operated in Alaska, where aviation might be the only mode of transportation? YES ( ) explain NO (X)
#### RESERVE INSURANCE COMPANY, an Illinois corporation, authorized to do business in the State of Florida, Appellant, v. Ronald A. GUILER and Diane Guiler, Individually, and as husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 72-768.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

Feb. 27, 1973.

Rehearing Denied March 20, 1973.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                      EXHIBIT A

    Due to the financial condition of the Company, it is acknowledged that the
Company may not be in a position to fully pay the management fee set forth in
Section 5.1 of the Agreement when due (the "Management Fee"), and therefore it
is agreed as follows:

    1. At the end of each calendar quarter during the Term (including for this
purpose the quarter ending March 31, 1996), the Company's "current assets", as
hereinafter defined, shall be determined. "Current assets" shall mean the total,
on the last day of the quarter in question, of: (i) cash or cash equivalents on
hand; plus (ii) contract and/or accounts receivable due the Company which are
due and collectible within the following twelve months. The Company's Chief
Executive Officer or Chief Financial Officer shall certify to the Board the
amount of the Company's current assets within 10 days after the end of each
quarter.

    2. With respect to each calendar quarter during the Term, the following
percentage of the Management Fee shall be paid:

    (a) 0% if the current assets as of the end of the previous calendar quarter
are less than $500,000; or

    (b) 33 1/3% if the current assets as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter are more than $500,000 but less than $1,000,000; or

    (c) 66 2/3% if the current assets as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter are more than $1,000,000 but less than $1,500,000; or

    (d) 100% if the current assets as of the end of the previous calendar
quarter are more than $1,500,000.

    3. Any portion of the Management Fee otherwise due which is not paid as a
result of the conditions imposed under Paragraph 2 of this Exhibit A shall
accrue (the "Shortfall"). At the end of each calendar quarter the Company shall
issue a promissory note for the Shortfall (the "Note"), which Note shall be due
and payable within twelve months of the date of issue, and which shall bear
interest at two percentage points per annum over the prime rate of interest in
New York on the date of issue.

    4. Each Note issued hereunder shall provide that the holder shall have the
option, at any time prior to payment in full of the Note, to exchange any
portion or all of the then remaining balance of such Note for newly issued
common stock of the Company. Such exchange shall be based on the outstanding
principal and interest on the Note on the date of the exchange and the average
closing bid price of the Company's common stock for the most recent ten days in
which stock traded. Any such stock, when issued, shall carry the most favorable
anti-dilution, "piggyback" registration and such other rights as may then, or
thereafter, apply to any other issued common stock of the Company and/or to any
options or warrants to purchase stock of the Company.