alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 6 (Thursday, January 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1339-1340]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-463]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Fish and Wildlife Service


Preparation of a Joint Environmental Impact Statement /
Environmental Impact Report for Federal and State Actions Associated 
With Furthering the Purposes of the September 28, 1996, Agreement 
Between the United States, State of California, and MAXXAM, Inc. and 
its Subsidiary, Pacific Lumber Company

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.

    Cooperating Agencies: National Marine Fisheries Service, National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Commerce, Environmental 
Protection Agency, Forest Service, Agriculture, Bureau of Land 
Management, Interior, California State Resources Agency, California 
State Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California State 
Department of Fish and Game.

ACTION: Notice of additional public scoping meeting and extension of 
scoping comment period.

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

SUMMARY: As specified in the official Notice of Intent (FR, Vol. 61, 
No. 250, p. 68285), five public scoping meetings were scheduled and all 
scoping comments to the notice were requested to be received by 
February 10, 1997. This present Notice announces that a sixth public 
scoping meeting has been scheduled and the above agencies request all 
scoping comments to this notice be received by February 18, 1997. The 
sixth public scoping meeting has been scheduled for Tuesday, February 
11, 1997, Radisson Plaza Hotel, 1400 Parkview Avenue, Manhattan Beach, 
California, from 1 p.m. to no later than 4 p.m., and from 6 p.m. to no 
later than 9 p.m.

ADDRESSES: Comments regarding the scope of the EIS should be addressed 
to Mr. Bruce Halstead, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1125 16th 
Street, Room 209, Arcata, CA 95521-5582. Comments should be received on 
or before February 18, 1997, at the above address. Written comments may 
also be sent by facsimile to (707) 822-8136. Comments received will be 
available for public inspection by appointment during normal business 
hours (8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday) at the above 
office; please call for an appointment.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Mackey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife 
Service, 911 NE 11th Avenue, Portland,

[[Page 1340]]

Oregon 97232-4181, Telephone: (503) 231-6241.

John H. Doebel,
Acting Regional Director, Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
[FR Doc. 97-463 Filed 1-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
I 

116TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 7652 

To prohibit the removal of a statue provided by a State for display in 

National Statuary Hall unless two-thirds of the members of the State’s 

congressional delegation approve the removal, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 16, 2020 

Mr. NORMAN (for himself, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. BUDD, Mr. LAMALFA, and Mr. 

GAETZ) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on House Administration 

A BILL 

To prohibit the removal of a statue provided by a State 

for display in National Statuary Hall unless two-thirds 

of the members of the State’s congressional delegation 

approve the removal, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘National Statuary Hall 

5 Collection Policy Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 7652 IH

1 SEC. 2. PROHIBITING REMOVAL OF STATUES PROVIDED BY 

2 STATES FOR DISPLAY IN NATIONAL STAT3 UARY HALL WITHOUT APPROVAL OF CON4 GRESSIONAL DELEGATION OF STATE. 

5 Section 311(a)(2) of the Legislative Branch Appro6 priations Act, 2001 (2 U.S.C. 2132(a)(2)) is amended— 

7 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of subpara8 graph (A); 

9 (2) by striking the period at the end of sub10 paragraph (B) and inserting ‘‘; and’’; and 

11 (3) by adding at the end the following new sub12 paragraph: 

13 ‘‘(C) the request has been approved by not 

fewer than 2 14 ⁄3 of the Members of the House of 

15 Representatives and Senators who represent the 

16 State.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Vernado MIXON v. Charles A. WARD, Judge, Criminal Dist. Court, Parish of Orleans.

No. 60501.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 16, 1977.

In re: Vernado Mixon applying for remedial writs.

Writ denied. The trial court’s ruling is correct, for the reasons stated by its return of September 9, 1977.
No. 10496.

#### Kale, Admx., *v.*The South Palmyra Coal Co.

Decided June 26, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Portage county.

*Mr. W. H. Woolf*and *Mr. J. H. Dussel,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Cushing &*Siddall, for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Shauck, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the Balance
Sheet as of January 25, 1997 and the Statement of Earnings for the 52 weeks
ended January 25, 1997 and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000864968
<NAME> VENTURE STORES, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-25-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-25-1997
<CASH>                                          10,178
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   14,013
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    274,393
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               317,938
<PP&E>                                         532,888
<DEPRECIATION>                                 168,977
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 687,660
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          299,750
<BONDS>                                        179,059
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         77
<COMMON>                                        18,286
<OTHER-SE>                                     163,568
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   687,660
<SALES>                                      1,485,759
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,485,759
<CGS>                                        1,165,325
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  387,173
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              27,576
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (94,315)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (35,837)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (58,478)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (58,478)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (3.38)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (3.38)
        

</TABLE>
1 Affirm ance W ithout O pinion - M emor andum Opinio n. (b) The Court, w ith the con currenc e of all judges part

icipat ing in the

case, may aff

irm, rever

se or modify t

he actions

of the tr ial court by memorandum opinion when a for

mal opinion would have no precedenti

al value.When a case is decided by memorandum opinion it

shall be designate

d “MEMORA NDUM OPINION ,” shall not be publi shed, and sha ll not be cited or relied on fo r any reas on in a su bseque nt unrelate d case. [A s amen ded by order filed April 22 , 1992.]



# FILED
December 4, 1998 Cecil W. Crowson Appellate Cou rt Clerk IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE
STEPHEN P. KOPELS, ) ) Plaintiff/Appell

ant ) NO. 01A01-9711-C V-00646 ) v. ) HON. MURIEL ROBINSON ) JUDGE KATHERINE ANNETTE BRYANT, ) ) Defendant/Appellee ) AFFIRMED David M. Zolensky, Nashville, for Appellant. Dot Dobbins, Nashville, for Appellee.



### MEMORANDUM OPINION 1

INMAN, Senio

r Judge This is a domestic relations ca se. The appellant com plains of the awar

d of the residence to

the appellee, and

the award of the attorne y’s fees. Our review of the findings of fact ma

de by the trial Court is de novo upon the record of the trial Court, accompanied by a

presumption of the co

rrectness of the

finding, unless the preponderance of the evidence is otherwise. T ENN . R. A PP . P., R ULE 13(d); Campbell v. Florida Steel Corp ., 919 S.W.2d 26 (Te nn. 1996). Where there is no confl ict i n the evidence as to a ny material fact,

the question on appeal is one of la w, and the scope of revi ew is de novo with no presumption of co rrectnes s accompanying

a chance llor's conclusions of la w. Union Carbide Corp. v. Huddleston, 854 S.W.2d 87 (Te nn. 1993)
.2 The parties were married seventeen year

s. They have

two minor child

ren. The trial judge foun

d that the appellee pr

ovided the principal su stenance for the family, and that her sepa rate , substantial estate

was dissipated by

the appellant, whose lifestyle was beyond his financial means. The aw ard of attorney fees was essentially

driven by the chronic failureof the appellant to a ttend hearings,

which multiplied the a

ppellee’s legal e

xpenses. Rule 10, Rules of

the Court of Appea

ls, is peculiarly applicable to this case, since we clearly cannot find that the evidence preponderates aga

inst thejudgment of the tr i al court and no proper

purpose would be ser

ved by a recita

tion of the evidence. The judgment

is affirmed a

t the costs of the appe

llant.

_______________________________ William H. Inman, Senior Judge CONCUR:

_______________________________ Houston M. Goddard, Presiding Judge

_______________________________ Charles D. Susa

no, Jr., Judge
#### Rudy Bernard LUENBERGER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. S-492.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Jan. 15, 1974.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
No. 10937.

#### Judson *v.*Zurhorst.

Decided June 16, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Erie county.

*Mr. H. L. Peeke,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. H. C. De Ran,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, C. J., Crew, Summers and Spear, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. William E. CRETSINGER.

No. 61825.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 16, 1978.

In re: William E. Cretsinger applying for remedial writs and stay order. St. Mary Parish.

Writ denied; and stay order vacated. Adequate showing for extradition made.
#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Richard BROWN v. Harold M. TERRY, Sheriff of Caddo Parish.

No. 60973.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Dec. 9, 1977.

In re: Richard Brown applying for writ of habeas corpus. Parish of Caddo.

Writ granted. It is ordered that this application be transferred to the district court for action on it by trial judge.
INTERNATIONAL MUREX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION                         Exhibit  21
Subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997


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

                                                                 Jurisdiction of
Name                                                              Incorporation
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL MUREX TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

IMTC Holdings (U.K.) Limited                                      United Kingdom

Specialist Diagnostics Limited                                    United Kingdom

Murex Biotech Limited                                             United Kingdom

Murex Diagnostics Corporation                                     Barbados

Murex Diagnostics International, Inc.                             Barbados

Murex Diagnosticos Ltda                                           Brazil

IMTC Holdings Corporation (L) Limited                             Malaysia

IMTC Holdings BV                                                  Netherlands

Murex Diagnostics Benelux BV                                      Netherlands

Murex Diagnostici, S.p.A                                          Italy

Murex Diagnostics France S.A                                      France

Murex Diagnostic S.A                                              Spain

Murex Diagnostica GmbH                                            Germany

Murex Diagnostics A/S                                             Denmark

Murex Diagnostics, Spol. s r.o                                    Czech Republic

Murex Diagnostics, Inc.                                           United States

IMTC Technologies, Inc.                                           United States

Murex Medical Research Limited                                    Isle of Man

Technology Licence Company Limited                                Isle of Man

Murex Diagnostics Australia Pty Ltd.                              Australia

Murex Diagnostics Private Limited                                 Singapore

Murex Argentina S.A                                               Argentina

Murex Diagnostics SA (Pty.) Limited                               South Africa

Murex Biotech SA (Pty.) Limited                                   South Africa
U.S. Position on IFC’s Investment in the Regional Africa Railways Limited Project

July 26, 2011

The United States appreciates management’s efforts to take into account the lessons learned from 

the IFC’s investment in the failed Tanzanian railways concession when structuring this proposed 

equity investment. The United States believes that the business case for this rail investment is 

much stronger and the sponsors are more committed to turning the business around. In addition, 

the demand for rail in Kenya and Uganda appears significantly higher than in Tanzania. There 

will be a number of challenges associated with this project, not the least of which will be 

managing resettlement in a fair and equitable manner. Since this is a Category A project and 

triggers certain legislative mandates for the United States regarding the timeframe for disclosure 

of the environmental impact assessment, the United States wishes to be recorded as abstaining on 

this investment because the environmental impact assessment was not posted 120 days prior to 

Board consideration.
EXHIBIT 23.01



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

As independent public accountants, we hereby consent to the
incorporation of our reports included in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K, into the Company's previously filed Registration
Statement File No. 333-40601, Registration Statement File No.
333-66949, Registration Statement File No. 333-72323, and
Registration Statement File No. 333-72351.


                                   ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

Omaha, Nebraska,
    March 27, 2000
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

 

**18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

 

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

 

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with theQuarterly Report of The Banker’s Store, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10- QSBfor the fiscal quarter ended November 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul D. Clark,President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that based on my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

 
| *Dated:  April 14, 2006* | * *               | */s/ PAUL D. CLARK* |
|--------------------------|------------------------|---------------------|
|                     | *Paul D. Clark*        |
|                     | *President, Chief*     |
|                     | *Executive Officer*    |
| * *                 | *and  Chief Financial* |
| * *                 | *Officer*              |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-7518

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus DWAYNE MANNING, a/k/a Rude Dog, a/k/a Jonathan Manning, Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CR-95-156-H, CA-02-356-5-H) Submitted: January 16, 2003 Decided: January 24, 2003 Before WILLIAMS, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dwayne Manning, Appellant Pro Se. John Howarth Bennett, OFFICE OF THE 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: Dwayne Manning, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion. An appeal may not be taken from the final order in a § 2255 proceeding unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). When, as here, a district court dismisses a § 2255 motion solely on procedural grounds, a certificate of appealability will not issue unless the movant can demonstrate both “‘(1) that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right’ and (2) ‘that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.’” Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 684 (4th Cir.) (quoting Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000)), cert. denied , 122 S. Ct. 318 (2001). We have reviewed the record and conclude for the reasons stated by the district court that Manning has not made the requisite showing. SeeUnited States v. Manning , Nos. CR-95-156-H; CA-02-356-5-H (E.D.N.C. Aug. 21, 2002; filed Sept. 27, 2002 & entered Sept. 30, 2002). Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
<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 SIX MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1995 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                             110
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   20,126
<ALLOWANCES>                                       172
<INVENTORY>                                     12,063
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                35,182
<PP&E>                                          23,344
<DEPRECIATION>                                   9,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  56,208
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           18,502
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               31
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                      33,664
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    56,208
<SALES>                                         30,016
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                30,035
<CGS>                                           19,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,726
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 9,102
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  36
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                       429
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                742
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                       742
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.28
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.28
        

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

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
consolidated balance sheet of Farmers Group, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
June 30, 1999 and the related consolidated statements of income,
comprehensive income, stockholders' equity and cash flows for the six
month period ended June 30, 1999 (unaudited) and is qualified in its
entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000


<S>                                       <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                          72,401
<SECURITIES>                                    32,621
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               534,950
<PP&E>                                         728,733
<DEPRECIATION>                                 306,330
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              12,745,669
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          425,303
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          500,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,076,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                12,745,669
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,626,737
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,052,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              21,035
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                552,714
<INCOME-TAX>                                   215,023
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            337,691
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   337,691
<EPS-BASIC>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0




</TABLE>
255 La. 156

#### STATE of Louisiana ex rel. Bobby Joe BYCE v. C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden Louisiana State Penitentiary, et al.

No. 50283.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1970.

In re: Bobby Joe Byce applying for writ of habeas corpus.

Writ refused. The showing made in the application is insufficient to warrant the exercise of our supervisory jurisdiction.