alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 54 (Tuesday, March 20, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 16319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6604]


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

SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD

[Docket No. FD 35571]


Amtrak's Petition for Determination of PRIIA Section 209 Cost 
Methodology

AGENCY: Surface Transportation Board.

ACTION: Adoption of methodology to establish and allocate costs for 
state-supported Amtrak routes.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the adoption of a methodology to 
establish and allocate costs for state-supported Amtrak routes. Amtrak 
developed this methodology in consultation with affected states, 
pursuant to Section 209 of the Passenger Rail Investment and 
Improvement Act of 2008 (PRIIA). Following consultations, the affected 
states agreed to adoption of the methodology, with the exception of 
Indiana. Indiana advised Amtrak that it did not accept the proposed 
methodology, but did not offer any explanation for its decision. In 
light of Indiana's decision, Amtrak subsequently filed its petition 
with the Board, seeking adoption of the methodology.
    By decision served on March 15, 2012, the Board finds that the 
methodology meets the requirements of PRIIA Section 209(a) and should 
be implemented by Amtrak in accordance with PRIIA Section 209(c). The 
methodology is a single, nationwide standardized methodology for 
establishing and allocating the operating and capital costs among the 
states and Amtrak, associated with the trains operated on the routes 
subject to PRIIA Section 209(a). Upon review of the methodology and the 
facts and circumstances surrounding its development, the Board 
concludes that the methodology will: (1) Ensure equal treatment in the 
provision of like services of all states and groups of states; and (2) 
allocate to each route the costs incurred only for the benefit of that 
route and a proportionate share, based upon factors that reasonably 
reflect relative use, of costs incurred for the common benefit of more 
than one route. The decision will become effective on April 14, 2012. 
The entire Board decision is available on the Board's Web site at 
www.stb.dot.gov.
    This decision will not significantly affect either the human 
environment or the conservation of energy resources.

    Decided: March 13, 2012.

    By the Board, Chairman Elliott, Vice Chairman Mulvey, and 
Commissioner Begeman.
Jeffrey Herzig,
Clearance Clerk.
[FR Doc. 2012-6604 Filed 3-19-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-01-P
#### Michael F. CHINIGO v. GEISMAR MARINE, INC., Cooper Gilder Chemicals, Inc. and Phillip H. Kerr.

No. 87-C-2108.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Cooper Gilder Chemicals, Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA86 0563; Parish of Ascension, 23rd Judicial District Court, Div. “C”, No. 34594.

Prior report: La.App., 512 So.2d 487.

Denied.

DIXON, C.J., and DENNIS, J., would grant the writ.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-19-00504-CR

Tiffany Wade, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

FROM THE 427TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

NO. D-1-DC-18-202900, THE HONORABLE TAMARA NEEDLES, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R

PER CURIAM

Appellant’s brief on appeal was due September 16, 2020. On counsel’s motion, 

the time for filing was extended to November 16, 2020. Appellant’s counsel has now filed a 

second motion, requesting that the Court extend the time for filing appellant’s brief. We grant 

the motion for extension of time and order appellant to file a brief no later than January 19, 2021. 

No further extension of time will be granted and failure to comply with this order will result in 

the referral of this case to the trial court for a hearing under Rule 38.8(b) of the Texas Rules of 

Appellate Procedure.

It is ordered on November 24, 2020.

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Baker and Kelly

Do Not Publish
Exhibit 32.2



|               |  |                                                                                                                                                  
|-------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|EXHIBIT 32.2  |  | CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (the
Form 10-Q) for the quarter ended June 30, 2010 of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc. (the Issuer).

The
undersigned hereby certifies that the Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Issuer.

Date: August 9, 2010



|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|By:    |  | /s/ THOMAS W. CASEY    
|Name:  |  | Thomas W. Casey        
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

ELIJAH GIBBS,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 625 MAL 2019

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 9th day of March, 2020, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### Roy Dewayne SNELSON v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58516.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

April 5, 1989.

Ronnie L. Harper, Natchez, for appellant.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by Wayne Snuggs, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for ap-pellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Adams County; Edwin E. Benoist, Jr., Judge.

Before HAWKINS, P.J., and ROBERTSON and PITTMAN, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., DAN M. LEE, P.J., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and BLASS, JJ., concur.
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

131566 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 131566 

 COA: 268669 

Kalkaska CC: 03-002401-FC 

ERIC MICHAEL MUSSER, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 1, 2006 order of 

the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that 

the question presented should be reviewed by this Court. 

t1023 

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

October 31, 2006 

 Clerk
#### Ozzie TOOMER, Individually and As Tutrix of the Minor, Steven Toomer v. Johnny CASH, Bayou State Security Services, Inc. and American Can Company.

No. 87-C-1476.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 25, 1987.

In re Toomer, Ozzie; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of *460Appeal, Fourth Circuit, No. CA-6426; Parish of Orleans, Civil District Court, Div. “H”, No. 80-10431.

Prior report: La.App., 506 So.2d 165.

Denied.

CALOGERO, DENNIS and LEMMON, JJ., would grant the writ.
**Exhibit
      32.2**





**Certification
      of Principal Financial Officer**


**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 Quarterly Report of SRKP 5, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and
      Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Anthony C.
      Pintsopoulos, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to Section 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; and





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





/s/ Anthony
                C. PintsopoulosAnthony
                C. Pintsopoulos
              Principal
                Financial Officer
              October
                21, 2008
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The undersigned officer of MailTec, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby
certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that amendment 1 to the
Company's Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the three months ended
June 30, 2006 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company.

                                 /s/ W. Ross C. Corace
                                 ----------------------
                                 W. Ross C. Corace
                                 Chief Executive Officer
                                 Chief Financial Officer

September 27, 2006
Regulatory Evaluation

Docket No. FAA- Directorate Identifier: -AD

If you make changes to the values in the table below, you must ensure the totals update accordingly. If 

they do not, click (or Tab) into and then out of the changed cell.

Estimated Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Do not include oncondition costs here

Costs per Product (e.g., aircraft, engine, 

propeller, appliance)

Work-hours

(include 

access, testing, 

and close-up)

Labor 

cost 

(@$85/h

our)

Parts Cost Total Costs 

(labor + 

parts)

Number of 

U.S. 

Registered 

Products

Total Cost 

for U.S. Fleet

Power Cycle 1.0 $ 85.00 $0 $ 85.00 855 $72,675.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00 $ 0.00

The known number of products in compliance: 0

Total Costs of compliance for U.S. fleet: $72,675

Costs covered under warranty (if known) $0

On-Condition Costs:

Action

(e.g., Inspection, 

replacement)

Work-hours 

(include access, 

testing, and closeup)

Labor cost 

(@$85/hour)

Parts Cost Cost per Product

$ 0.00 $0 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

$ 0.00 $ 0.00

Special considerations for Economic Analysis (Use this field to explain anything in the Estimated Costs table 

that was assumed or might not be obvious. This field can also be used to explain warranty costs):
Executive Order 12866:

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action”?

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures:

Is the AD significant? 

YES* NO 

*Explanation: 

Regulatory Flexibility Act:

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities? Explain for 

either a Yes or No answer.

YES NO 

Explanation: 

Intrastate Aviation in Alaska:

This AD could affect intrastate aviation in Alaska. Is it appropriate to include specific requirements for 

aircraft operated in Alaska where aviation might be the only mode of transportation?

YES* NO 

*Explanation:
#### Richard Len GUARINE, Appellant, v. Julia Curran GUARINE, Appellee.

No. 4-86-2607.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

June 8, 1988.

Jeff Tomberg of Tomberg & Tomberg, P.A., Boynton Beach, for appellant.

M.S. Dunay of Myron S. Dunay, P.A., Delray Beach, for appellee.

HERSEY, Chief Judge.

Appellant, Richard Guarine, appeals the lower court’s final judgment in this dissolution of marriage case, contending that the court erroneously awarded appellee, as a special equity, an undivided one-half interest in appellant’s interest in a home owned by appellant and his mother.

We deny appellee’s motion to dismiss the appeal, finding that the lack of a transcript of the final hearing does not leave us with an inadequate basis for review of the issue raised.

We reverse the award of a special equity in the home to appellee, as appellee’s contribution to mortgage payments during the four-year marriage did not constitute a contribution “over and above normal marital duties.” *See Ingram v. Ingram,*379 So.2d 955 (Fla.1980); *Bolton v. Bolton,*421 So.2d 697 (Fla. 2d DCA 1982); *Hottman v. Hottman,*418 So.2d 304 (Fla. 4th DCA 1982).

We note, as did *Ingram*and *Hottman,*that upon remand the trial court may make an alimony award to appellee if necessary to do equity between the parties.

LETTS and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, David O'Neill, President and Chief Executive Officer of Global Electronic Recovery Corp.., certify that:

1.	I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Global Electronic Recovery Corp.;

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:

1. 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 small business issuer, 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;
2. Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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
3. Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

Page 1





5.	The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer's 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 small business issuer'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 small business issuer's internal control over financial reporting.

Date: October 20, 2006

/s/ David O'Neill	David O'Neill
President and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)

Page 2
# ATLANTIC BANCSHARES, INC.

# Exhibit 32 
Section 1350 Certifications

---

# ATLANTIC BANCSHARES, INC.

Exhibit 32

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

The undersigned, the Chief Executive
Officer and Chief Financial Officer of Atlantic Bancshares, Inc. (the
Company), each certify that, to his or her knowledge on the date of this
certification:

| | 1. | The quarterly report of the Company for the period ended September 30, 2006 as
                    filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on this date (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:  November 13, 2006 |  | By:   /s/  Robert P. Trask
|------------------------ |  | --------------------------
|                         |  | Robert P. Trask           
|                         |  | Chief Executive Officer   

|Date:  November 13, 2006 |  | By:   /s/  Michelle Monts
|------------------------ |  | -------------------------
|                         |  | Michelle Monts           
|                         |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 4.1
 
 COMMON STOCK COMMON STOCK NUMBER PAGCustomer Services, Inc. CUSIP000185e 10 6 SEE REVERSE FOR CERTAIN DEFINITIONS INCORPORATED UNDER THE
LAWS OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT FULLY PAID AND NON-ASSESSABLE SHARES OF THE COMMON STOCK, PAR VALUE $.01, OF APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES,tnc. transferable on the books of the corporation by the holder hereof in person or by duly authorized
attorney, upon surrendr of this Certificate properly endorsed. This Certificate is not valid
unlesscounter signed by the transfer Agent and registered by the registerar. WITNESS the facsimile
seal of the corporation and the facsmile signatures of its duly authorized officers. Dated:




---



##### 



APAC CUSTOMER SERVICES, INC. Upon written request, the Corporation will furnish to the holder hereof, without charge, a
full statement of all the designations, preferences, qualifications, limitations, restrictions,
and special or relative rights of the shares of each class of authorized capital stock; and the
variations in the relative rights and preferences determined for each series; and the authority of
the Board of Directors to fix and determine the relative rights and preferences of a subsequent
series. ASSIGNMENT The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of this certificate,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations: TEN COM- as tenants in common
 _____ 
UNIF GIFT MIN ACT- ...... Custodian
TEN ENT- as tenants by the entireties (Cust) (Minor)
JT TEN- as joint tenants with
 _____ 
under Uniform Gifts to Minors
right of survivorship and
not as tenants in common
 _____ 
Act
(State) UNIF TRF MIN ACT- Custodian (until age .. ) .......
(Gust)

 _____ 
...... under Uniform Transfers (Minor) to Minors Act (State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
for value received, ................hereby self assign and trnsfer unto PLEASE INSERT SOCIAL SECURITY OR OTHFR
IDENTIFYING NUMBER OF ASSIGNEE (PLEASE PRINT OR TYPEWRITE NAME AND ADDRESS INCLUDING POSTAL ZIP CODE OF ASSIGNEE) Shares of the stock represented by the writhin certificate and do hereby unrevoably constituter
and appoint Attorney to transfer the said shares an the books of the within named companation with full howex of
substitution in the premises. Dated AFFIX MEDALLION SIGNATURE GUARANTEE IMPRINT BELOW ABOVE SIGNATURE(S) TO THE ASSIGNMENT MUST CORRESPOND WITH THE NAME
AS WRITTEN UPON THE FACE OF THE CERTIFICATE IN EVERY PARTICULAR,
WITHOUT ALTERATION OR ENLARGEMENT, OR ANY CHANGE WHATEVER. THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR
INSTITUTION SUCH AS A SECURITIES BROKER/DEALER. COMMERCIAL BANK.
TRUST COMPANY, SAVINGS ASSOCIATION OR A CREDIT UNION PARTICIPATING
IN A MEDALLION PROGRAM APPROVED BY THE SECURITIES TRANSFER
ASSOCIATION INC.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, *v.*Roy Champlin, Appellant.

(Argued March 2, 1916;

decided April 11, 1916.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, rendered May 22, 1915, at a Trial Term for the county of Allegany, upon a yerdict convicting the defendant of the crime of murder in the first degree.

*714
      *Jesse L. Grantier*and *Francis B. O’Connor*for appellant.

*James T. Ward, District Attorney,*for respondent.

Judgment of conviction affirmed ; no opinion;

Concur: Willard Bartlett, Oh. J., Hiscock, Collin, OUDDEBACK, HOGAN, SEABURY and POUND, JJ.
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2310 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on p-Toluene Sulfonyl Chloride. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mr. BROWN (for himself and Mr. VOINOVICH) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend temporarily the suspension of duty on p-Toluene 

Sulfonyl Chloride. 

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

3 SECTION 1. P-TOLUENE SULFONYL CHLORIDE. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.25.11 of the Har5 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

6 p-Toluene Sulfonyl Chloride) is amended by striking the 

7 date in the effective column period and inserting ‘‘12/31/ 

8 2011’’. 

9 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

10 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2310 IS

1 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS