alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 165 (Friday, August 24, 2018)]
[Notices]
[Pages 42893-42894]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-18117]


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

GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION

[Notice-PBS-2018-08; Docket No. 2018-0002; Sequence No. 23]


Public Building Service (PBS); Notice of Availability and 
Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California; Correction

AGENCY: Public Building Service (PBS), General Services Administration 
(GSA).

ACTION: Notice of Availability and Announcement of Meeting for the 
Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, 
San Diego, California; Correction.

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

SUMMARY: GSA published a notice in the Federal Register on August 10, 
2016, at 83 FR 39753, regarding the Notice of Availability and 
Announcement of Meeting for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement 
for the Otay Mesa Port of Entry, San Diego, California. GSA is making 
an editorial change to the Dates, Addresses, and Public Meeting 
sections to correct the date of the DEIS Public Meeting; the location 
of the DEIS; and the comment period end date.

DATES: Applicable: Friday, August 24, 2018.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Osmahn Kadri, Portfolio Management 
Division, Public Buildings Service, GSA at 415-522-3617. Please cite 
Notice-PBS-2018-06; Correction.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Correction

    In the notice FR Doc. 2018-17211 published in the Federal Register 
at 83 FR 39753, August 10, 2018, make the following corrections:
    On page 39753, first sentence of the paragraph under the Dates 
section, remove ``Thursday, August 9th'' and add ``Wednesday, September 
5,'' in its place.
    On page 39753, third sentence of the paragraph under the Dates 
section,

[[Page 42894]]

remove ``Friday, August 31, 2018'' and add Tuesday, October 9th, 2018 
in its place.
    On pages 39753 and 39754, first sentence of the second paragraph 
under the ADDRESSES section, remove ``https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/
regions/welcome-to-the-pacific-rim-region-9/land-ports-of-entry/otay-
mesa-land-port-of-entry'' and add ``https://www.gsa.gov/about-us/
regions/welcome-to-the-pacific-rim-region-9/land-ports-of-entry/otay-
mesa-land-port-of-entry/otay-mesa-environmental-review'' in its place.
    On page 39754, second sentence of the paragraph under the Public 
Meeting section, remove ``August 31, 2018'' and add Tuesday, October 
9th, 2018 in its place.

    Dated: August 16, 2018.
Matthew Jear,
Director, Portfolio Management Division, Pacific Rim Region, Public 
Buildings Service.
[FR Doc. 2018-18117 Filed 8-23-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6820-YF-P
V

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3344

For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

OCTOBER 21, 1993

Ms. BYRNE introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee

on the Judiciary

A BILL

For the relief of Lloyd B. Gamble.

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

3 SECTION 1. APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS.

4 (a) PAYMENT.—The Secretary of the Treasury shall

5 pay, out of any money in the Treasury not otherwise ap6 propriated, to Lloyd B. Gamble of Fairfax, Virginia, the

7 sum of $253,488.

8 (b) BASIS.—The payment required by subsection (a)

9 shall be to compensate Lloyd B. Gamble for the injuries

10 sustained by him as a result of the administration to him,

11 without his knowledge, of lysergic acid diethylamide by

12 United States Army personnel in 1957.
2

•HR 3344 IH

1 SEC. 2. SATISFACTION OF CLAIMS.

2 The payment made pursuant to section 1 shall be in

3 full satisfaction of all claims Lloyd B. Gamble may have

4 against the United States for any injury described in such

5 section.

6 SEC. 3. INELIGIBILITY FOR ADDITIONAL BENEFITS.

7 Upon payment of the sum referred to in section 1,

8 Lloyd B. Gamble shall not be eligible for any compensa9 tion or benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs

10 or the Department of Defense for any injury described in

11 such section.

12 SEC. 4. LIMITATION OF AGENTS AND ATTORNEYS FEES.

13 It shall be unlawful for an amount of more than 10

14 percent of the amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be

15 paid to or received by any agent or attorney for any service

16 rendered to Lloyd B. Gamble in connection with the bene17 fits provided by this Act. Any person who violates this sec18 tion shall be guilty of an infraction and shall be subject

19 to a fine in the amount provided in title 18, United States

20 Code.

Æ
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 95-2632
WILLIAM P. BOULDEN; HATTIE G. BOULDEN, Petitioners - Appellants, versus COMMISSIONER OF THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States Tax Court. (Tax Ct. No. 94-13243) Submitted: January 23, 1996 Decided: February 9, 1996 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. William P. Boulden, Hattie G. Boulden, Appellants Pro Se. Gary R. Allen, Richard Farber, Andrea R. Tebbets, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the tax court's decision finding a deficiency for tax year 1991. We have reviewed the record and the tax court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the tax court. Boulden v. Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service , No. 94-13243 (Tax Ct. Aug. 1, 1995). 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
#### Morris LINDER et al., Appellants, v. CITY OF MIAMI BEACH, etc., Appellee.

No. 39906.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 9, 1970.

Appeal dismissed.
#### Joseph FILER, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 72-615.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Sept. 12, 1973.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 13, 1973.

James A. Gardner, Public Defender, and W. Daniel Kearney, Asst. Public Defender, Bradenton, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and David Luther Woodward, Asst. Atty. Gen., Tampa, for appellee.

HOBSON, Judge.

Appellant Joseph Filer and one Robert Leonard were charged by information with conspiring together to commit a felony, to-wit: the sale of heroin. No one else was named in the information as a co-conspirator, nor was it averred that appellant conspired with any unknown persons.

After the State had concluded its case, Leonard’s motion for directed verdict of acquittal was granted. The lower court denied appellant’s motion for directed verdict, and the trial proceeded with appellant being the sole defendant in the case. Pursuant to a jury verdict of guilty, the lower court adjudged appellant guilty and sentenced him to three years imprisonment.

It is not necessary, to sustain a conviction for a conspiracy, that co-conspirators be charged. Ng Pui Yu v. United States, 9th Cir. 1965, 352 F.2d 626; Feldstein v. United States, 9th Cir. 1970, 429 F.2d 1092. See DiStefano v. Langston, Fla.1973, 274 So.2d 533. However, in those cases the defendants were charged with conspiring with other persons, who had not been acquitted. But where the information or indictment alleges that the defendant and other individuals named as co-defendants were the sole perpetrators of the conspiracy, and the other individuals were acquitted, conviction must be reversed. Herman v. United States, 5th Cir. 1961, 289 F.2d 362; Romontio v. United States, 10th Cir. 1968, 400 F.2d 618; cf. Lubin v. United States, 9th Cir. 1963, 313 F.2d 419; United States v. Cabrera, 5th *670Cir. 1971, 447 F.2d 956; United States v. Sparrow, 10th Cir. 1972, 470 F.2d 885.

Appellant’s motion for directed verdict should have been granted.

In view of our holding, it is unnecessary to consider appellant’s remaining points.

The judgment appealed is

Reversed.

MANN, C. J., and LILES, J., concur.
Union Calendar No. 210

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3509

[Report No. 103–382]

A BILL

To approve a Governing International Fisheries

Agreement.

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Commitordered to be printed tee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, and
IB

Union Calendar No. 210

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 3509

[Report No. 103–382]

To approve a Governing International Fisheries Agreement.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NOVEMBER 15, 1993

Mr. STUDDS (for himself, Mr. MANTON, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr.

FIELDS of Texas) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Additional sponsors: Mr. TAUZIN, Mr. COBLE, and Mr. LIPINSKI

NOVEMBER 19, 1993

Reported with an amendment, committed to the Committee of the Whole

House on the State of the Union, and ordered to be printed

[Insert the part printed in italic]

A BILL

To approve a Governing International Fisheries Agreement.

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

3 That the Agreement between the Government of the

4 United States of America and the Government of the Rus5 sian Federation on Mutual Fisheries Relations which was
2

•HR 3509 RH

1 entered into on May 31, 1988, and which expired by its

2 terms on October 28, 1993, may be brought into force

3 again for the United States through an exchange of notes

4 between the United States of America and the Russian

5 Federation and may remain in force and effect on the part

6 of the United States until May 1, 1994, and may be

7 amended or extended by a subsequent agreement to which

8 section 203 of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and

9 Management Act (16 U.S.C. 1823) applies.

10 SEC. 2. Section 304(g)(6)(B) of the Magnuson Fishery

11 Conservation and Management Act (16 U.S.C.

12 1854(g)(6)(B)) is amended by striking ‘‘January 1, 1994’’

13 and inserting ‘‘April 1, 1994’’.
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 S.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Palm Harbor Homes, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-K for the year ended March 28, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Kelly Tacke, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as
adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.78m or 78o(d); and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|    |  |                                                                                           
|--- |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/    KELLY TACKE                                                                        
|    |  | Kelly Tacke, Chief Financial Officer (Chief Financial and Accounting Officer) June 3,
2008
EXHIBIT 31.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SS. 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002  I, Lisa Ramakrishnan, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Vantage Health;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;  4. I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the Company and have:  (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the Company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements for external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles;  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company's disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the Company's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the Company's most recent fiscal quarter (the Company's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company's internal control over financial reporting; and  5. I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company's auditors and the board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the Company's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Company's internal control over financial reporting.  Date: May 15, 2011   /s/ Lisa Ramakrishnan Lisa Ramakrishnan President and Chief Executive Officer
#### Revocation of Mustakas’ License.

Argued September 25, 1934.

Before Keller, Cunningham, Baldrige, Stadteeld, Parker and James, JJ.

*268
      *John E. McDonough,*and with him *R. Paul Lessy*and *Joseph E. Pappano,*for appellant.

O. *William Kraft, Jr.,*Assistant District Attorney, and with him *William J. MacCarter, Jr.,*District Attorney, for appellee.

December 18, 1934:

Opinion by

Keller, J.,

This is a companion case to No. 252 October Term, 1934, In re Revocation of License of Jacob Mark, decided this day.

The county treasurer of Delaware County issued a retailer beverage license to John Mustakas, under the Act of May 3, 1933, P. L. 252, for the premises 312 East Tenth Street, Marcus Hook. On September 15, 1933 the district attorney of Delaware County, acting under the 13th section of said act, filed his petition in the Court of Quarter Sessions of Delaware County, asking that court to revoke or suspend this license. An answer was filed denying the averments of the petition and challenging the right of the court to revoke or suspend the license for any cause other than a violation of the laws of this Commonwealth relating to the sale of beverages or alcoholic liquors. A hearing was had in open court on September 28,1933, and continued to November 20, 1933, at which testimony in support of the rule was taken.

The court, on March 1, 1934, revoked the license, and Mustakas has appealed.

It is not necessary to discuss again the legal points covered in the opinion in the Mark case. This case differs from that, however, in that from a consideration of the testimony taken at the hearing, in accordance with the Act of April 18, 1919, P. L. 72, we find no sufficient evidence in the record to justify a revocation of the license. It shows nothing more than that *269on April 4, 1933, one James J. Dumel, prior to the issuing of the retailer beverage license of Mustakas, was arrested for maintaining a gambling house at 312 East Tenth Street, Marcus Hook, for which place Mustakas was subsequently granted a license; that Dumel pleaded nolo contendere and was sentenced to pay a fine of $100 and undergo imprisonment for the term of sixty days; and that he has since his release been an employee of Mustakas in and about said premises. The evidence fails to show that Dumel is the owner of the premises, and is not sufficient to justify the inference that he is directly or indirectly pecuniarily interested with Mustakas in the business being carried on at that place. A mere employee is not one who is pecuniarily interested within the meaning of the act.

For these reasons our review of the record on certiorari requires us to hold that the court below exceeded its proper legal discretion in revoking the license issued to John Mustakas. The order is reversed.
#### Michelle Matison, Individually and as Administrator of the Estate of Arelene Matison, Deceased, and as Parent and *495Natural Guardian of Thomas Mattson, an Infant, Appellant, v County of Nassau, Respondent.

[736 NYS2d 115]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Winslow, J.), entered November 13, 2000, which, after a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside the verdict as against the weight of the evidence, and for a new trial.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

It is the obligation of the appellant to assemble a proper record on appeal *(see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas,*288 AD2d 309; *Singh v Getty Petroleum Corp.,*275 AD2d 740). The record must contain all of the relevant papers that were before the Supreme Court, including the transcript, if any, of the proceedings *(see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, supra; Desmarat v Basile,*288 AD2d 336; *Lowry v Suffolk County Water Auth.,*287 AD2d 551). The plaintiff seeks review of an interlocutory order which denied her motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 to set aside a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, and therefore, the record should have included the full trial transcript *(see, Lowry v Suffolk County Water Auth., supra).*As the plaintiff failed to submit a record that would enable this Court to render an informed decision on the merits, her appeal must be dismissed *(see, Matter of Allstate Ins. Co. v Vargas, supra; Desmarat v Basile, supra; Lowry v. Suffolk County Water Auth., supra; Patel v Patel,*270 AD2d 241; *Brown v Middleton,*244 AD2d 306). Florio, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
**Exhibit 32(b)**

**DPL Inc. and TheDayton Power and Light Company**

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officersof DPL Inc. and The Dayton Power and Light Company (the “Issuers”) herebycertifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Issuers’ Annual Report on Form10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006, which this certificate accompanies,fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained thereinfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Issuers as of the dates and for the periods expressedtherein.

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, orother document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting thesignature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of thisstatement required by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, has beenprovided to the Issuer and will be retained by the Issuers and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

Signed:
| /s/ John J. Gillen                                |   |
|---------------------------------------------------|--------|
| John J. Gillen                                    |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |
| Date: February 22, 2007                           |

 

Theforegoing certificate is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350 and is not being filed as part of the Issuer’s Annual Report or as aseparate disclosure document.

 

1

----
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

    CERTIFICATION BY THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
         RELATING TO A PERIODIC REPORT CONTAINING FINANCIAL STATEMENTS

     I, Glen T. Meakem, Chief Executive Officer, and I, Joan S. Hooper, Chief
Financial Officer, of FreeMarkets, Inc., a Delaware corporation, hereby certify
that:

          (a) The Company's periodic report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly
     period ended June 30, 2002 (the "Form 10-Q"), fully complies with the
     requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
     amended; and

        (b) The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
     material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
     Company.

                                    *  *  *

Chief Executive Officer

By: /s/ GLEN T. MEAKEM
     ----------------------------------------------------
     GLEN T. MEAKEM

Date: August 7, 2002
Chief Financial Officer

By: /s/ JOAN S. HOOPER
    ---------------------------------------------------
    JOAN S. HOOPER

Date: August 7, 2002

                                        21