alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 36 (Monday, February 24, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8309-8310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4492]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service


Art Advisory Panel of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue 
Availability of Report of 1996 Closed Meetings

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service.


[[Page 8310]]


ACTION: Notice of availability of report on closed meetings of the art 
advisory panel.

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

Summary: The report is now available.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. app. I section 10(d), of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act; and 5 U.S.C. section 552b, the Government in the 
Sunshine Act: A report summarizing the closed meeting activities of the 
Art Advisory Panel during 1996, has been prepared. A copy of this 
report has been filed with the Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for 
Management and is now available for public inspection at: Internal 
Revenue Service, Freedom of Information Reading Room, Room 1621, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20224 .
    Requests for copies should be addressed to: Director, Disclosure 
Operations Division, Attn: FOI Reading Room, Box 388, Benjamin Franklin 
Station, Washington, DC 20224, Telephone (202) 622-5164 (Not a toll 
free telephone number).
    The Commissioner of Internal Revenue has determined that this 
document is not a major rule as defined in Executive Order 12291 and 
that a regulatory impact analysis therefore is not required. Neither 
does this document constitute a rule subject to the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. Chapter 6).

For further information contact: Karen Carolan, C:AP:AS:4, 901 D 
Street, SW., Room 224, Washington, DC 20024, Telephone (202) 401-4128 
(Not a toll free telephone number).
Margaret Milner Richardson,
Commissioner of Internal Revenue.
[FR Doc. 97-4492 Filed 2-21-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Docket No. F AA-2008-0681 

Record of Ex Parte Contacts 

IE 

Directorate Identifier: 2008-NE::A-ff-AD 

With whom outside the FAA has this action been discussed (i.e., Design Approval Holder, 

manufacturer, ATA, NBAA, RAA, AOPA, ALPA, GAMA, etc)? (You might need to submit a separate 

record to the Rules Docket. The AD Manual defines "Ex Parte Contacts. '') ~ 

ORGANIZATION PERSON CONTACTED DATE RESPONSE 

HAl Harold Summers 4118/12 

EASA Frederic Chambon 4117112 Other. List below. 

Other/ Additional Information: EASA responded that even though the MCAI was written as an 

IAR, urgency was not the main reason for the AD. The first concern was to reduce the 

applicability to FCUs with identification plates or log cards dated later than March 31, 2008, 

which could have been a revision to the AD. The second purpose was to address "on the 

shelves" FCUs, which weren't addressed in the original AD, making it a supersedure. Also, 

clarification on how to identify a non-compliant plug was added to the revised SB.
FAA PART 16 AIRPORT PROCEEDINGS DOCKET 

FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 

WASHINGTON, DC 

v ^ 

Oc 

ALCA, Inc., Cylinder Shop, Inc., 

Suncoast Aviation, Aircraft Parts 

and National Aviation, 

Complainants, 

vs. 

Miami-Dade County, Florida 

Respondent. 

Docket No. 16-08-05 

m 

..3 

I ^ i m I 

P M AIRPORTS 

PART16D0CKFTR 

UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO FILE REPLY BRIEF 

Petitioners, hereby file this Motion for Extension of Time to File Reply Brief 

and in support thereof would show: 

1. Petitioners have filed a Part 16 Complaint against Miami Dade County; 

2. The County filed its response after a several month delay and 

received a several month time extension; 

3. On October 7,2008, undersigned counsel assumed duties as Mayor of Miami 

Lakes in Dade County and has been required to spend much of October 2008 

assuming those duties; 

4. Undersign counsel bad sought extensions in all of his pending cases, until 

sometime in early mid November, due to these circumstances; 

5. There have been some changes in the status of the parties within the past 

thirty (30) days that need to be accounted for in preparing a reply; 

6. A final extension on a matter of this importance, will not prejudice a reply; 
7. This matter involves multiple parties and ongoing development issues that 

have decades of history; 

8. The reply is the petitioners final opportunity to document their complaints; 

9. Undersigned counsel spoke with the assistant County attorney, David 

Murray, who indicated the County does not oppose an extension of time until 

December 1,2008, for the petitioners to f9e their reply brief; 

10. Petitioners are requesting until December 1,2008, to file their reply brief. 

WHEREFORE: undersign counsel and petitioners request an extension of up until 

December 1, 2008 to submit their reply brief in this matter. 

Respectfully submitted, 

MICHAEL A. PIZZI, Jr., P.A. 

Attorney for Defendant 

15271 NW 60* Avenue 

Miami Lakes, Fl 33016 

Phone: 305 2312121 

FAX: 305 2312123 

E-mail: mpizziir(%vahoo.com 

By: 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq. 

Florida Bar No. 079545 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I HEREBY CERTIFY that a copy of the above Motion for Extension of Time to File 

Reply Brief was mailed to: 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attn: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings 

Docket 16-08-05 

Room 925, Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave., SW 

Washington, DC 20591 

Jennifer Trock, Esq^ 

Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman, LLP 

2300 N. Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20037 

David Murray, Esq. 

County Attorney 

P.O. Box 025504 

Miami, FL 33102-5504 

By: 

I 

^ - • 

Michael A. Pizzi, Jr., Esq.
EXHIBIT
      32





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


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


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


**SECTION 906
      OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Pachinko World, Inc., a Nevada
      corporation (the “Company”), on Form 10-KSB for the year ended May 31,
      2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the “Report”),
      Shinichi Hirabayashi, President and Chief Executive Officer, and Yoneji
      Hirabayashi, Chief Financial Officer, do hereby certify, pursuant to ss. 906
      of
      the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss. 1350), that to their
      knowledge:




(1) The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
      15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and




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






Date:
              September 13, 2006/s/ Shinichi
              HirabayashiShinichi Hirabayashi
              *President and Chief Executive
                Officer*




Date:
                September 13, 2006/s/ Yoneji
                HirabayashiYoneji Hirabayashi
                *Chief Financial Officer*


*A
      signed original of this written statement required by* *Section 906
      has been provided to Pachinko World, Inc. and will be retained by Pachinko
      World, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its
      staff upon request.*





*This
      Certification is being furnished pursuant to Rule 15(d) and shall not
      be deemed “filed” for purposes of Section 18 of the Exchange Act (15 U.S.C.
      78r), or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This Certification
      shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the
      Securities Act or the Exchange Act, except to the extent that the Company
      specifically incorporates it by reference..*
259 La. 684

#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry GRAVOIS.

No. 51609.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Aug. 17, 1971.

In re: Larry Gravois applying for writ of certiorari.

Writ refused. Applicant has a remedy by appeal in the event of his conviction.
No. 00M59.

No. 00M60.

No. 00M61.

No. 00M62.

No. 00M63.

No. 00M64.

#### Koehler *v.*Mueller, Warden; Chandra *v.*Medical College of Virginia et al.; Yadell et al. *v.*United States; Bernabel *v.*United States; Washington *v.*American Stores Co., Inc., et al.; and Stampley *v.*City of St. Paul et al.

Motions to direct the Clerk to file petitions for writs of certiorari out of time denied.
Tue May 27 08:44:36 EDT 2014 Moritz.Brigette@epamail.epa.gov FW: UAMPS Comment Period Correspondence To: CMS.OEX@epamail.epa.gov

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________

From: Laura Whitworth [mailto:Laura@uamps.com] Sent: Friday, May 23, 2014 3:13 PM To: Mccarthy, Gina Cc: doberndorfer@utah.gov; Group R8Eisc; Ted Rampton; Mason Baker Subject: UAMPS Comment Period Correspondence

This attached correspondence has been sent on behalf of Edward C. Rampton, UAMPS Manager of Government and Public Affairs, IT and Compliance.

Thank you,

Laura Whitworth UAMPS 155 North 400 West, Suite 480 Salt Lake City, Utah 84103 (801) 214-6422 laura@uamps.com
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 7846 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

116th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 7846

 To ensure access to Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for workers who 
  are unable to obtain child and family care, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 29, 2020

Ms. Porter (for herself and Ms. Sanchez) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To ensure access to Pandemic Unemployment Assistance for workers who 
  are unable to obtain child and family care, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Support Working Families Act of 
2020''.

SEC. 2. CLARIFICATION OF PANDEMIC UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE ELIGIBILITY 
              FOR PRIMARY CAREGIVING.

    Section 2102(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(dd) of the CARES Act (15 U.S.C. 
9021(a)(3)(A)(ii)(I)(dd)) is amended by striking ``that is closed as a 
direct result of the COVID-19 public health emergency'' and inserting 
``because the school or facility is closed or only partially reopened 
due to COVID-19, because child or family care is not available or 
affordable during the hours work is available due to COVID-19, or 
because physical attendance at the school or facility presents an 
unacceptable health risk for the household or the individual in need of 
care due to COVID-19,''.
                                 <all>
```
#### Earl JOHNSON and Willie Mae Johnson, his wife, Appellants, v. STATE of Florida DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Appellee.

No. P-227.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Feb. 17, 1972.

Carl R. Pennington, Jr., and N. Sanders Sauls, of Ervin, Pennington, Varn & Jacobs, Tallahassee, for appellants.

Geoffrey B. Dobson and Barbara Ann McPherson, Tallahassee, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court hereby appealed is affirmed. See Florida East Coast Railway Co. v. Martin County, (Fla.1965) 171 So.2d 873.

CARROLL, DONALD K., Acting C. J„ and WIGGINTON and JOHNSON, JJ., concur.
#### Ex parte Thomas Durwood TRENOR.

77-310.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 24, 1978.

ALMON, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and BLOODWORTH, FAULKNER and EMBRY, JJ., concur.
#### Dr. Sheldon WILLENS, Dr. Owen Macken, Dr. Martin Horn and St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company, Petitioners, v. Gladys E. JOHNSON and Edward Johnson, Respondents.

No. 69-643.

District Court of Appeal of Florida. Fourth District.

Jan. 19, 1970.

Certiorari dismissed.
#### Ernest C. BOURNE, Jr., Appellant, v. FIRST COMMERCIAL BANK OF ST. PETERSBURG, Appellee.

No. 70-932.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 10, 1971.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 21, 1972.

David F. Patterson, of Bryson & Patterson, St. Petersburg, for appellant.

William E. Allison, of Allison & Baird, St. Petersburg, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See Advertects, Inc. v. Sawyer Industries, Fla.1955, 84 So.2d 21, 24.

HOBSON, A. C. J., and MANN and Mc-NULTY, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.23

 

SUMMARY OF DIRECTOR COMPENSATION

 

We pay our non-employee directors, who consist of all our directors other than our chief executive officer, an annual fee of $75,000 for their services as directors. We pay an annual fee of $25,000 to the chair of our audit committee, $20,000 to the chair of our compensation committee, $10,000 to the chairs of our executive committee and our nominating and corporate governance committee, and $5,000 to each non-employee director who serves as a member, but not the chair, of any committee for service on each committee above one. Our chairman also receives an annual fee of $150,000, as well as office space, support services and healthcare benefits, for his services as chairman of our board of directors. Directors who are employees do not receive separate fees for their services as directors. All of the payments described in this paragraph are made in cash.

 

Under the terms of our 2006 equity incentive plan, each director who is not employed by, and does not provide independent contractor services as a consultant or advisor to, us or our subsidiaries receives automatic restricted stock awards. We refer to these directors as our “outside directors.” Currently, our outside directors are Drs. Moriarty, Robertson and Rose and Messrs. Concannon, Maheu and Schleyer. Each outside director who is re-elected as one of our directors at, or whose term continues after, our annual meeting of shareholders (or any special meeting in lieu thereof) will, on the date of the meeting, receive a restricted stock award, vesting in four equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, valued at $75,000, based on the closing price of our common stock as of that date. Each person who is first elected an outside director at our annual meeting of shareholders (or any special meeting in lieu thereof) will receive, on the date of his or her election, a restricted stock award, vesting in four equal annual installments beginning on the first anniversary of the date of grant, in an amount to be determined by our board of directors.
EXHIBIT 15

            First Commerce Corporation
            New Orleans, Louisiana




            Gentlemen:

            RE:   September 30, 1995 Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q

            With respect to the subject Quarterly Report, we acknowledge
            our awareness of the inclusion  therein of our report  dated
            October 20, 1995 related to our review of interim  financial
            information and that  said report  will be  included in  any
            registration statement filed  by First Commerce  Corporation
            through incorporation by reference of the subject  Quarterly
            Report into such registration statements.

            Pursuant to  Rule  436(c)  under the  Securities  Act,  such
            report is not considered a part of a Registration  Statement
            prepared or certified by an accountant or a report  prepared
            or certified by an accountant within the meaning of Sections
            7 and 11 of the Act.



                                            /s/ Arthur Andersen LLP
                                            _________________________
                                               ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP




            New Orleans, Louisiana
            November 14, 1995
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-6896
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus ENRIQUE ALFONSO GAYLE, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry Coke Morgan, Jr., Senior District Judge. (2:90-cr-00105-HCM) Submitted: October 11, 2007 Decided: October 17, 2007 Before MICHAEL and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Enrique Alfonso Gayle, Appellant Pro Se. Laura Marie Everhart, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Enrique Alfonso Gayle appeals the district court’s order denying his motion under Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) (1985). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See United States v. Gayle , No. 2:90-cr-00105-HCM (E.D. Va. filed May 24, 2007; entered May 25, 2007). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Order entered November 20 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01250

- CV

MOMENTIS U.S. CORPOR ATION, Appellant

V.

SHELDON WEISFIELD , ET AL. , Appellee s

On Appeal from the 68th Judicial District Court

Dallas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. DC

- 12

- 13869



### O RDER

We GRANT appellees’ November 13, 2013 motion for an extension of time to file a

brief. Appellees shall file their brief on or before December 9, 2013.

/s/ DAVID LEWIS JUSTICE
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Jimmy GARCIA.

No. 60385.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Oct. 21, 1977.

In re: Jimmy Garcia applying for writs of review and certiorari.

Writ denied. No error of law.
No. 10229.

#### Niece v. Percy.

Decided April 7, 1908.

Error to Circuit Court of Wood county.

*Mr. Henry W. Seney*and *Mr. Allen J. Seney,*for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. Baldwin & Harrington,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Price, Summers and Davis, JJ., concur.
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 23
                                       
                      CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report on 
Form 10-K of our report dated December 8, 1997, which appears in the 1997 
Annual Report to Shareholders of STB Systems, Inc., which is incorporated by 
reference in STB Systems, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year 
ended October 31, 1997. We also consent to the incorporation by reference in 
the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of STB Systems, Inc. of our report 
dated December 8, 1997, which appears in the 1997 Annual Report to 
shareholders of STB Systems, Inc., which is incorporated by reference in STB 
Systems, Inc.'s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended October 31, 
1997. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report on the 
Financial Statement Schedule, which appears in such Annual Report on Form 
10-K.



PRICE WATERHOUSE LLP

Dallas, Texas
January 29, 1998
**UNPUBLISHED**
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 11**  **- 7180** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff ─ Appellee ,
v. JOHNNY GRAYSON, Defendant ─ Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern Dist rict of West Virginia , at Wheeling
. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. ( 5:08

- cr - 00046

- FPS

- JSK

- 1 )

Submitted : February 9 , 2012 Decided: February 14, 2012
Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion
. Johnny Grayson, Appellant Pro Se. Randolph John Bernard, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY , Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Johnny Grayson appeal s from the district court ’ s order denying his “ Motion R equesting H ome C onfinement D ue to New Medical I ssues and R elocation [ of his supervised release ] Because of M arriage
. ” We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm substantially for the reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Grayson , No. 5:08

- cr - 00046

- FPS

- JSK

- 1 (N.D.W. Va
. Aug. 23, 2011); see 18
U.S.C. § § 3621(b) , 3625 (2006) ; Prows v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons , 981 F.2d 466, 469

- 70 (10th Cir. 1992); Un ited States v. Laughlin , 933 F.2d 786, 789

- 90 (9th Cir. 1991). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## In the Court of Appeals Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth

___________________________ No. 02

- 21

- 00445

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 236th District Court Tarrant County, Texas Trial Court No. 236

- 321758

- 20
Before Birdwell, Bassel, and Womack, JJ. Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### C REEKWOOD 

### C OMMUNITY 

### H OMEOWNERS 

### A SSOCIATION 

### , I NC



### . , Appellant

V



### . J OHN 

### W OLFE AND 

### K ATHY 

### W OLFE 

### , Appellee s2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT On February 7, 2022 , we notified appellant that the trial

- court clerk responsible for preparing the record in this appeal has informed us that appellant has not arranged to pay for the clerk’s record as the appellate rul es requ ire. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.3(a)(2). In our notice, we warned that we would dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant arranged to pay for the clerk’s record and provided us with proof of payment. See Tex. R. Ap p. P. 3 5.3(c), 37.3(b), 44.3

. Because appellant has not made payment arrangements for the clerk’s record, we now dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. P. 37.3(b), 42.3(b), 43.2(f). Appellant must pay all costs of this appeal. See T ex. R. App. P. 43.4.
Per Curiam
Delivered : March 3, 2022
Exhibit 32.1

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



         In connection with the Annual Report of Klever Marketing,  Inc. on Form
10-KSB for the period ending December 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,  William J. Dupre,
President  of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section  1350,  as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the
best of my knowledge and belief:

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

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


/s/    William J. Dupre
-------------------------------------
William J. Dupre
President and COO
(Principal Executive Officer)


April 16, 2004


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.