alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 140 (Friday, July 20, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Page 34612]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-15595]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

[RR04073000/XXXR4081X3/RX.05940913.7000000]


Notice To Reopen the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work 
Group Call for Nominations

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, Interior.

ACTION: Notice to reopen a call for nominations.

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

SUMMARY: A request for nominations was published by the Department of 
the Interior in the Federal Register on June 6, 2018, for specific 
positions on the Glen Canyon Dam Adaptive Management Work Group (AMWG) 
Federal advisory committee. The nomination period ended on July 6, 
2018. This notice reopens the nomination period for another 30 days.

DATES: The nomination period for the notice published on June 6, 2018, 
at 83 FR 26304, is reopened. Nominations for the vacant positions are 
due August 20, 2018.

ADDRESSES: Send nomination packages to Brent Rhees, Regional Director, 
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, 125 S State Street, Room 8100, Salt Lake 
City, UT 84138, or via email to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ef8d9d878a8a9caf9a9c8d9dc1888099"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="92f0e0faf7f7e1d2e7e1f0e0bcf5fde4">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Katrina Grantz, Chief, Adaptive 
Management Work Group, Environmental Resources Division, at (801) 524-
3635, fax: 801-524-5499, or by email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e48f8396858a909ea491978696ca838b92"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="adc6cadfccc3d9d7edd8decfdf83cac2db">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Nomination Process: Nominations should 
include a resume that provides an adequate description of the nominee's 
qualifications, particularly information that will enable the 
Department of the Interior to evaluate the nominee's potential to meet 
the membership requirements of the AMWG and permit the Department of 
the Interior to contact a potential member. The Membership Criteria 
section in the notice published on June 6, 2018 (83 FR 26304) provides 
specific information to be included in nomination packages.

    Dated: July 13, 2018.
 Ryan K. Zinke,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-15595 Filed 7-19-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4332-90-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# C_2022064EN.01000801.xml

| 7.2.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 64/8 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 64/8

---

Appeal brought on 2 August 2021 by Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG against the judgment of the General Court (Third Chamber) delivered on 2 June 2021 in Case T-856/19, Franz Schröder v EUIPO

(Case C-475/21 P)

(2022/C 64/12)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Appellant: Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG (represented by: L. Pechan, N. Fangmann, Rechtsanwälte)

Other parties to the proceedings: European Union Intellectual Property Office, RDS Design ApS

By order of 8 December 2021, the Court of Justice (Chamber determining whether appeals may proceed) held that the appeal was not allowed to proceed and that Franz Schröder GmbH & Co. KG should bear its own costs.

---
6200 Vogel Road, Evansville, Indiana 47715 • 812.479.6200 

July 11, 2016 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140 1200 New Jersey Ave., SE 

Washington, DC 20590 

Electronically Submitted via www.regulations.gov 

Re: Docket No. FAA-2015-1828, Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 12504A, 

Lochmueller Group, Inc. 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

Lochmueller Group, Inc. hereby requests an amendment to FAA Exemption No. 12504A, Docket 

No. FAA-2015-1828 to allow for the use of the following sUAS (small unmanned aircraft systems) 

in addition to the sUAS (small unmanned aircraft systems) added under Exemption Amendment 

No. 12504A, dated November 19, 2015, for the purpose of aerial data collection: 

• DJI Phantom 4 

• DJI Matrice 100 

• DJI Spreading Wings 5900 

The sUAS originally authorized in FAA Exemption FAA-2015-1828, The DJI Phantom 2 Vision+, is 

comparable in size, weight (under 55 pounds), speed, (less than 87 knotsL type and operating 

capabilities to the requested additional sUAS's listed above. 

The Applicant name and address is: 

Lochmueller Group Inc. 

Attn: Sean L. Suttles 

sUAS Project Manager 

6200 Vogel Road 

Evansville, Indiana 47715 
U.S. Department of Transportation 

Docket Operations 

Petition for Amendment to Exemption No. 12504A 

July 11, 2016 

Phone: (812)-479-6200 

Fax: (812) 479-6262 

Email: ssuttles@lochgroup.com 

Page 2 

This amendment petition is, in most regards, similar to granted exemption No. 12646 (FAA 

Exemption No. FAA-2015-1602) in terms of requested sUAS platform types. 

All operations of the requested additional sUAS platforms will be in full compliance with the 

terms of Lochmueller Group, Inc.'s current FAA Exemption No. 12504. 

Based on the foregoing, the Petitioner hereby requests that the FAA grant this amendment 

petition and provide such further relief as deemed appropriate for the operations proposed. 

Since the requested amendment to Lochmueller Group, Inc.'s exemption would not set any 

precedent or raise any novel issues, and because the Petitioner seeks to begin these operations 

without delay and because the addition of these sUAS's to our fleet would not materially affect 

our current granted exemptions No. 12504 & No. 12504A in any way, Lochmueller Group, Inc. 

respectfully requests the FAA to determine that good cause exists to dispense with publication 

of the summary of this petition in the Federal Register and grant the requested amendment 

expeditiously by summary means. 

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions concerning this request for an 

amendment to the exemption. 

Sincerely, 

LOCHMUELLER GROUP, INC. 

,L~.a Sean L. Suttles 

sUAS Project Manager
-  HIPAA for Professionals 
-  Regulatory Initiatives 
-  Privacy      -  Summary of the Privacy Rule 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Combined Text of All Rules 
  -  HIPAA Related Links 
-  Security      -  Summary of the Security Rule 
  -  Security Guidance  
  -  Cyber Security Guidance 
-  Breach Notification      -  Breach Reporting 
  -  Guidance 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  Regulation History 
-  Compliance & Enforcement      -  Enforcement Rule 
  -  Enforcement Process 
  -  Enforcement Data 
  -  Resolution Agreements 
  -  Case Examples 
  -  Audit 
  -  Reports to Congress 
  -  State Attorneys General 
-  Special Topics      -  HIPAA and Part 2 
  -  Change Healthcare Cybersecurity Incident FAQs 
  -  HIPAA and COVID-19 
  -  HIPAA and Reproductive Health        -  HIPAA and Final Rule Notice 
  -  HIPAA and Telehealth 
  -  HIPAA and FERPA 
  -  Research 
  -  Public Health 
  -  Emergency Response 
  -  Health Information Technology 
  -  Health Apps 
-  Patient Safety      -  Statute & Rule        -  PSQIA Statute 
    -  Patient Safety Rule 
  -  Enforcement 
  -  Guidance 
-  Covered Entities & Business Associates      -  Business Associate Contracts 
  -  Business Associates 
-  Training & Resources 
-  FAQs for Professionals 
-  Other Administrative Simplification Rules 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# Numbers at a Glance

(As of August 31, 2010)

**Topics on this page:**
                          - Status of All Privacy Rule Complaints
                          - Total Investigated Resolutions
                          - Investigated Resolutions

----

* Referrals to DOJ - 475

Back to Top

----

 

Back to Top

----

Back to Top

Content last reviewed July 26, 2013
Exhibit 23


             Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

  We  have  issued  our  report  dated  September 3,  2002  accompanying the
  consolidated financial statements included in the Annual Report of uniView
  Technologies  Corporation  on  Form 10-K for the year ended June 30, 2002.
  We  hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the
  following Registration Statements of uniView Technologies Corporation:

  Form S-3 (File No. 333-97809 effective August 13, 2002);
  Form S-3 (File No. 333-68326 effective August 13, 2002);
  Form S-3 (File No. 333-62680 effective July 13, 2001);
  Form S-3 (File No. 333-47692 effective October 25, 2000);
  Form S-8 (File No. 333-39358 effective June 15, 2000);
  Form S-3 (File No. 333-31952 effective March 21, 2000);
  Form S-2 (File No. 333-06447 effective September 30, 1996);


  /s/  Grant Thornton LLP


  Grant Thornton LLP

  Dallas, Texas
  September 3, 2002
In The

Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas at Texarkana

No. 06-12-00205-CR

WILLIAM LOUIS WALTON, Appellant

V.

STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 124th District Court

Gregg County, Texas

Trial Court No. 40741-B

Before Morriss, C.J., Carter and Moseley, JJ.
2

O RDER

J. Brandt Thorson, counsel for William Louis Walton, has filed a motion to extend time 

to file the appellant’s brief. The brief was due March 4, 2013.

In his motion, counsel does not provide the Court with a reasonable explanation of the 

need for an extension of time, stating only that “Counsel for Appellant has had inadequate time 

[to] review the record and fully develop argument regarding the points of error to be asserted 

herein.” This Court interprets Rule 10.5(b)(2) of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure as 

requiring counsel to provide the Court with specific information to justify the requested 

extension, including the cause numbers of other briefs filed, the dates they were filed, the dates 

of trials, how long those trials are expected to last, etc. Broad, general statements do not provide 

the required facts and are not adequate to meet the requirements of the rule. See TEX. R. APP. P.

10.5(b)(2).

All future motions to extend time must contain case-specific information adequate to 

justify the request, or they will be denied.

In this instance, we grant the motion for an extension, for a period of thirty days, making 

appellant’s brief now due April 3, 2013. Further requests for extensions will not be looked upon 

with favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

BY THE COURT

Date: March 5, 2013
-  Coronavirus 
-  Grants 
-  Health Insurance Reform 
-  HHS Administrative 
-  HIPAA 
-  Medicare and Medicaid 
-  Programs for Families and Children 
-  Public Health and Safety 

                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   
                      -   

# What are the rules on funding religious activity with Federal money?

The United States Supreme Court has said that faith-based organizations may not use direct government support to support "inherently religious" activities. Basically, it means you cannot use any part of a direct Federal grant to fund religious worship, instruction, or proselytization. Instead, organizations may use government money only to support the non-religious social services that they provide. Therefore, faith-based organizations that receive direct governmental funds should take steps to separate, in time or location, their inherently religious activities from the government-funded services that they offer.

Such organizations should also carefully account for their use of all government money. This does not mean your organization can't have religious activities. It simply means you can't use taxpayer dollars to fund them. Some faith-based organizations set up separate charitable organizations (so-called "501(c)(3) corporations") to keep programs that receive government money separate from those that engage in inherently religious activities.

This rule of thumb is different if your organization receives Federal money that comes in the form of "vouchers" or other so-called "indirect aid." In simple terms, an indirect aid program is one that gives funds or certificates to individuals in need, which can be used to obtain services from a number of qualified organizations. A good example of indirect aid is a child-care certificate that a parent can use for daycare at any participating child-care center. School vouchers are another example of indirect aid. The vast majority of programs affected by the Faith-Based and Community Initiative involve direct aid to organizations (that is, money that goes directly to the organizations themselves), not vouchers or indirect aid.

**Learn more:**
                    - Center for Faith Based and Community Initiatives

Posted in: Grants

### Related Questions

What are some legal obligations that are part of receiving a Federal grant?

What kinds of grants are available from the Federal government?

## Search HHS FAQs by questions or keywords:

Content last reviewed August 11, 2014
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

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 12, 2007 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |  |  |                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                        |  | 
|Dated: January 28, 2008 |  |  |  | /s/ Stephen V. Coffey  
|                        |  |  |  | Stephen V. Coffey      
|                        |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer

Note: A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Diedrich
Coffee, Inc. and will be retained by Diedrich Coffee, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

We the
undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



| | 1. | this annual report on Form 20-F of BT Group plc 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 this annual report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of BT Group plc.
| | -- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                   |  |  |  |                     |  |                       
|------------------ |  |  |  | ------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Date: May 21, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Gavin Patterson
|                   |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Gavin Patterson       
|                   |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Group Chief Executive 
|                   |  | 
|Date: May 21, 2015 |  |  |  | /s/ Tony Chanmugam 
|                   |  |  |  | Name:               |  | Tony Chanmugam        
|                   |  |  |  | Title:              |  | Group Finance Director
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

Docket No. 38314

STATE OF IDAHO ,
Plaintiff-Respondent ,

v.

JONATHAN MICHAEL PAGE ,
Defendant-Appellant

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) 2012 Unpublished Opinion No. 325

Filed: January 19, 2012

Stephen W. Kenyon, Clerk

THIS IS AN UNPUBLISHED OPINION AND SHALL NOT BE CITED AS AUTHORITY

Appeal from the District Court of the Fourt h Judicial District, State of Idaho, Ada County. Hon. Darla S. Williamson , District Judge.

Order relinquishing jurisdiction, affirmed

.

Sara B. Thomas , State Appellate Public De fender; Erik R. Lehtinen, Deputy Appellate Public Defender, Boise, for appellant.

Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General; Lori A. Fleming, Deputy Attorney General, Boise, for respondent.

________________________________________________ Before GRATTON, Chief Judge; LANSING, Judge; and GUTIERREZ, Judge

PER CURIAM Jonathan Michael Page was convicted of possession of methamphetamine , Idaho Code
§ 37

- 2732(c). The district court impos ed a unified seven

- year sentence with a two

- year determinate term, suspended the sentence and placed Page on supervised probation. A report of probation violation was filed and Page admitted to violating several terms of his probation. The

district court revoked probation, ordered execution of the original sentence, and retained jurisdiction. At the conclusion of the retained jurisdiction program, the district court again placed Page on supervised probation. A second report of probation violation was fi led and Page subsequently admitted to violating probation. The district court revoked probation and ordered a second period of retained jurisdiction. Upon Page’s completion of this second period of retained2 jurisdiction, the district court relinquished j urisdiction and ordered execution of Page’s sentence. Page filed an Idaho Criminal Rule 35 motion which was denied. Page appeals the district court’s decision to relinquish jurisdiction. The decision as to whether to place a defendant on probation or, in stead, to relinquish jurisdiction is committed to the discretion of the sentencing court. State v. Lee , 117 Idaho 203,

205

- 06, 786 P.2d 594, 596

- 97 (Ct. App. 1990). It follows that a decision to relinquish jurisdiction will not be disturbed on appeal exc ept for an abuse of discretion. State v. Chapman

, 120 Idaho 466, 472, 816 P.2d 1023, 1029 (Ct. App. 1991). Idaho Code § 19

- 2521 sets out the criteria a court must consider when deciding whether to grant probation or impose imprisonment.

A decision to de ny probation will not be held to represent an abuse of discretion if the decision is

consistent with the Section 19

- 2521 standards. State v. Merwin , 131 Idaho 642, 962 P.2d 1026
(1998). The record in this case shows that the district court properly consi dered the information before it and determined that probation was not appropriate. Therefore, w e hold that the district

court did not abuse its discretion

. The order relinquishing jurisdiction is affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 1997, and is qualified in
its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED> 
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,253
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   31,412
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,702
<INVENTORY>                                     24,081
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                66,797
<PP&E>                                          42,011
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,623
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 108,376
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,272
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           138
<OTHER-SE>                                      30,694
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   108,376
<SALES>                                         60,670
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                60,670
<CGS>                                           49,345
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   19,153
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 446
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (8,274)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (2,817)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (5,457)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.40)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as an officer of Diedrich Coffee, Inc. (the
Company), for purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:



| |  |  | the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 13, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | - |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| |  |  | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.
| | - |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                        |  |                                           
|----------------------- |  | ------------------------------------------
|Dated: January 25, 2007 |  | /s/ Sean M. McCarthy                      
|                        |  | Sean M. McCarthy                          
|                        |  | Vice President and Chief Financial Officer

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