alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 43 (Friday, March 4, 1994)] 

[Unknown Section] 

[Page 0] 

From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov] 

[FR Doc No: 94-5008] 

[[Page Unknown]] 

[Federal Register: March 4, 1994] 

======================================================================= 

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy 

10 CFR Part 430 

[Docket No. EE-RM-93-701] 

Energy Conservation Program for Consumer Products 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy. 

ACTION: Availability of letters. 

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Energy today gives notice that copies of 

three letters related to the ``Background'' statement in a pending 

notice of proposed rulemaking, 58 FR 67710 (December 22, 1993), have 

been placed in the Freedom of Information Reading Room for public 

inspection. That document contains proposed amendments to the existing 

test procedure applicable to clothes washers under 10 CFR part 430, 

subpart B, appendix J. Two of the letters involve an exchange of 

correspondence between the Department and the Whirlpool Corporation 

regarding the meaning of the existing test procedure. The third letter 

conveys copies of the first two letters to all clothes washer 

manufacturers. 

ADDRESSES: Copies of the three letters may be read at the DOE Freedom 

of Information Reading Room, U.S. Department of Energy, Forrestal 

Building, room 1E-190, 1000 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 

20585, (202) 586-6020, between the hours of 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, except Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William W. Hui, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency 

and Renewable Energy, Mail Station EE-43, Forrestal Building, 1000 

Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20585, (202) 586-7140. 

Eugene Margolis, Esq., U.S. Department of Energy, Office of General 

Counsel, Mail Station GC-72, Forrestal Building, 1000 Independence 

Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 43 (Friday, March 4, 1994) Page 1 of 2

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-03-04/html/94-5008.htm 10/12/2017
Avenue, SW., Washington, D.C. 20585, (202) 586-9507. 

 Issued in Washington, DC, February 28, 1994. 

Christine A. Ervin, 

Assistant Secretary, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy. 

[FR Doc. 94-5008 Filed 3-3-94; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P 

Federal Register, Volume 59 Issue 43 (Friday, March 4, 1994) Page 2 of 2

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-1994-03-04/html/94-5008.htm 10/12/2017
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 273 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 273

Designating the week beginning March 11, 2000, as ``National Girl Scout 
                                Week''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 9, 2000

 Mrs. Hutchison (for herself, Ms. Mikulski, Mr. Hatch, Ms. Snowe, Mr. 
 Warner, Mr. Bunning, Mr. Bond, Mr. Ashcroft, Mr. Smith of Oregon, Mr. 
    Helms, Mr. Murkowski, Mr. Craig, Mr. Domenici, and Ms. Collins) 
 submitted the following resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Designating the week beginning March 11, 2000, as ``National Girl Scout 
                                Week''.

Whereas March 12, 2000, is the 88th anniversary of the founding of the Girl 
        Scouts of the United States of America;
Whereas on March 16, 1950, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America 
        became the first national organization for girls to be granted a Federal 
        charter by Congress;
Whereas through annual reports required to be submitted to Congress by its 
        charter, the Girl Scouts of the United States of America regularly 
        informs Congress of its progress and program initiatives;
Whereas the Girl Scouts of the United States of America is dedicated to 
        inspiring girls and young women with the highest ideals of character, 
        conduct, and service to others so that they may become model citizens in 
        their communities;
Whereas the Girl Scouts of the United States of America offers girls aged 5 
        through 17 a variety of opportunities to develop strong values and life 
        skills and provides a wide range of activities to meet girls' interests 
        and needs;
Whereas the Girl Scouts of the United States of America has a membership of 
        nearly 3,000,000 girls and over 900,000 adult volunteers, and is one of 
        the preeminent organizations in the United States committed to girls 
        growing strong in mind, body, and spirit; and
Whereas by fostering in girls and young women the qualities on which the 
        strength of the United States depends, the Girl Scouts of the United 
        States of America, for 88 years, has significantly contributed to the 
        advancement of the United States: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) designates the week beginning March 11, 2000, as 
        ``National Girl Scout Week''; and
            (2) requests the President to issue a proclamation 
        designating the week beginning March 11, 2000, as ``National 
        Girl Scout Week'' and calling on the people of the United 
        States to observe the day with appropriate ceremonies and 
        activities.
                                 <all>
```
1

In The

Court of Appeals

Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont

_________________

NO. 09-16-00402-CV

_________________

IN RE GERALD HOOKS JR. AND LESLY K. NOLEN

________________________________________________________________________

Original Proceeding

172nd District Court of Jefferson County, Texas

Trial Cause No. E-167,872

________________________________________________________________________

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In this mandamus proceeding, Gerald Hooks Jr. and Lesly K. Nolen contend 

that the trial court abused its discretion by striking their intervention in a class 

action, Trial Cause Number E-167,872, Sandra Geter, on Behalf of Herself and All 

Others Similarly Situated v. Farmers Group. Inc., et al. Hooks and Nolen are 

members of the class, and they have not challenged the adequacy of the 

representation of the class. The class representative obtained a summary judgment 

on policy renewal and renewal premium rates, and the case is set for a trial limited 

to the issue of attorney’s fees for class counsel. See generally Tex. R. Civ. P. 42(h).
2

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation 

of a duty imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. In re 

Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-36 (Tex. 2004); Walker v. 

Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992). After reviewing the petition, the 

response filed by Farmers1

, the response filed by Sandra Geter, and the appendices 

to the petition and the responses, we conclude that the relators have not 

demonstrated an abuse of discretion by the trial court for which no adequate 

remedy by appeal exists. Accordingly, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus.

PETITION DENIED. 

PER CURIAM

Submitted on November 14, 2016

Opinion Delivered November 15, 2016

Before Kreger, Johnson, and Clapp, JJ.2

 1 In this Opinion, “Farmers” collectively refers to Farmers Group, Inc., 

Farmers Underwriters Association, Fire Underwriters Association, Farmers 

Insurance Exchange, and Fire Insurance Exchange. 2 The Honorable Judge Randy M. Clapp, Judge of the 329th District Court of 

Wharton County, Texas, sitting by assignment. See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 

74.003(h) (West 2013).
<PAGE>
'
                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

            PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL AND ACCOUNTING OFFICER CERTIFICATION

In connection with the annual report on Form 10-K of Presstek, Inc. (the
"Company") for the year ending January 1, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Moosa
E. Moosa, Principal Financial and Accounting Officer of the Company, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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 the Company.


                                           /s/  Moosa E. Moosa
                           -----------------------------------------------------
                                             Moosa E. Moosa
                           Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
                                (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


March 17, 2005
Consent
of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm








To the
Board of Directors


Presstek,
Inc.:





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements (No.
33-80466, 33-61215, 33-39337, 333-76905, 333-97897, and 333-122230) on Form S-8
of Presstek, Inc. of our reports dated March 24, 2010, with respect to the
consolidated balance sheets of Presstek, Inc. and subsidiaries as of January 2,
2010 and January 3, 2009, and the related consolidated statements of operations,
changes in stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income (loss), and cash flows
for each of the fiscal years in the three-year period ended January 2, 2010, and
the related consolidated financial statement schedule II and the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting as of January 2, 2010, which
reports appear in the January 2, 2010 annual report on Form 10-K of Presstek,
Inc.








/s/ KPMG
LLP





New York,
New York


March 24,
2010
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Larry PERKINS.

No. 87-K-2701.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 12, 1988.

In re Perkins, Larry; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Nos. KA87 0479, KA87 0480; Parish of East Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, Nos. 9-86-597, 1-87-85.

Prior report: La.App., 517 So.2d 314.

Denied.

CALOGERO, J., would grant the writ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY,§

§ No. 243, 2015

Defendant Below, §

Appellant/Cross-Appellee, §

§ Court Below: Superior Court

§ of the State of Delaware

v. § in and for New Castle County

§

PROFESSIONAL INVESTIGATION§ C.A. No. N12C-06-196

& CONSULTING AGENCY, INC., §

d/b/a PICA, §

§

Plaintiff Below, §

Appellee/Cross-Appellant. §

Submitted: December 2, 2015

Decided: December 4, 2015 

Before STRINE, Chief Justice; VALIHURA, and SEITZ, Justices.

ORDER

On this 4th day of December, 2015, the Court, having carefully considered 

this matter after oral argument and on the briefs filed by the parties, has determined 

that the factual findings of the jury are supported by the evidence and the Superior 

Court did not err in its legal determinations. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Superior 

Court is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr.

Justice
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

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC (the Company) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Patrick Bratton, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:



|(i) | 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
|--- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(ii) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Atlantic Broadband Finance, LLC.
|---- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: November 8, 2010



/s/ Patrick BrattonPatrick BrattonChief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)


The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 and is not being filed as part of this Report.
Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed December 21, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D16-2119

Lower Tribunal No. 92-20576A

________________

Jose Cruz,

Petitioner,

vs.

The State of Florida,

Respondent.

A case of original jurisdiction – Petition for Review.

Jose Cruz, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, for respondent.

Before WELLS, SHEPHERD and SALTER, JJ.

ON ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

SHEPHERD, J.
On October 13, 2016, this court denied Jose Cruz’s most recent attempt to

seek review of the sentence entered below in lower court case number 92-20576A,

at the same time ordering Cruz to show cause why he should not be prohibited

from any further pro se appeals, pleadings, motions or petitions dealing with Case

No. 92-20576A. Cruz responded to the show cause order, but has not shown good

reason for not being prohibited from further pro se filings.1 

Accordingly, we direct the Clerk of the Third District Court of Appeal to

refuse to accept for filing in this court any further appeals, petitions or motions

relating to Cruz’s conviction and sentence in Case No. 92-20576A, unless they are

filed by a Florida Bar member in good standing. Any such further unauthorized

pro se filings by Cruz will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of

written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for

consideration by it of disciplinary action. See 944.279(1), Fla. Stat. (2016).

1 Unbeknownst to this panel, Cruz previously was prohibited by this court from

further pro se filing concerning Case No. 92-20576A. Cruz v. State, 981 So. 2d

1272 (Fla. 3d DCA 2008).

2
Hollywood Media - Amended Credit Letter






Exhibit 10.1













August 5, 2005







Hollywood Media Corp.

2255 Glades Road, Suite 221A

Boca Raton, FL  33431







Reference is hereby made to that certain letter agreement dated March 28, 2005 (the “Letter Agreement”) whereby Mitchell Rubenstein and Laurie S. Silvers (together, the “Obligors”) committed to fund up to $5.0 million to Hollywood Media Corp. on the terms set forth therein.




This letter confirms our agreement that:




1.  

The commitment of the Obligors to provide funding as set forth in the Letter Agreement shall continue in effect through January 1, 2007.




2. 

Except as stated herein, all other terms of the Letter Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.




Sincerely,







/s/ Mitchell Rubenstein




Mitchell Rubenstein

Chief Executive Officer







/s/ Laurie S. Silvers




Laurie S. Silvers

President




Acknowledged and agreed to by

Hollywood Media Corp.







By:/s/ Scott Gomez




Name:

Scott Gomez

Title:

Chief Accounting Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 238 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 238

  To authorize representation of Member of the Senate in the case of 
                 Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                           November 19, 1999

    Mr. Lott (for himself and Mr. Daschle) submitted the following 
             resolution; which was considered and agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  To authorize representation of Member of the Senate in the case of 
                 Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al., C.A. No. 99-
        1590, pending in the United States District Court for the District of 
        Columbia, the plaintiff has named as a defendant Senator Orrin G. Hatch; 
        and
Whereas, pursuant to sections 703(a) and 704(a)(1) of the Ethics in Government 
        Act of 1978, 2 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 288b(a) and 288c(a)(1), the Senate may 
        direct its counsel to defend Members of the Senate in civil actions 
        relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate Legal Counsel is directed to represent 
Senator Hatch in the case of Brett Kimberlin v. Orrin Hatch, et al.
                                 <all>
```
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 346 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  2d Session
S. RES. 346

  Acknowledging that the undefeated and untied 1951 University of San 
 Francisco Dons football team suffered a grave injustice by not being 
   invited to any post-season Bowl game due to racial prejudice that 
   prevailed at the time and seeking appropriate recognition for the 
              surviving members of that championship team.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             July 27, 2000

Mrs. Boxer submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 
                               agreed to

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
  Acknowledging that the undefeated and untied 1951 University of San 
 Francisco Dons football team suffered a grave injustice by not being 
   invited to any post-season Bowl game due to racial prejudice that 
   prevailed at the time and seeking appropriate recognition for the 
              surviving members of that championship team.

Whereas the 1951 University of San Francisco Dons football team completed its 
        championship season with an unblemished record;
Whereas this closely knit team failed to receive an invitation to compete in any 
        post-season Bowl game because two of its players were African-American;
Whereas the 1951 University of San Francisco Dons football team courageously and 
        rightly rejected an offer to play in a Bowl game without their African-
        American teammates;
Whereas this exceptionally gifted team, for the most objectionable of reasons, 
        was deprived of the opportunity to prove itself before a national 
        audience;
Whereas ten members of this team were drafted into the National Football League, 
        five played in the Pro Bowl and three were inducted into the Hall of 
        Fame;
Whereas our Nation has made great strides in overcoming the barriers of 
        oppression, intolerance, and discrimination in order to ensure fair and 
        equal treatment for every American by every American; and
Whereas it is appropriate and fitting to now offer these athletes the attention 
        and accolades they earned but were denied: Now therefore, be it
    Resolved, That the Senate--
            (1) applauds the undefeated and untied 1951 University of 
        San Francisco Dons football team for its determination, 
        commitment and integrity both on and off the playing field; and
            (2) acknowledges that the treatment endured by this team 
        was wrong and that recognition for its accomplishments is long 
        overdue.
                                 <all>
```
##### 



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 Quarterly Report of Macquarie Infrastructure Company Trust (the Trust) and
Macquarie Infrastructure Company LLC (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ending
March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
Report), I, Peter Stokes, Chief Executive Officer 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(b) 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 Trust and the Company. /s/ Peter StokesPeter StokesChief Executive OfficerMay 16, 2005
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 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.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, *v.*Dominick Masella, Joseph Weiner and Norman Connolly, Defendants.

County Court, Kings County,

March 24, 1959.

*1070
      *Edward 8. Silver, District Attorney (William Siegel*of counsel), for plaintiff.

*William Kleinman*for Joseph Weiner and Norman Connolly, defendants.

*J ames D. C. Murray*for Dominick Masella, defendant.

Hyman Babshay, J.

The District Attorney seeks an order directing that this trial be conducted before a special jury pursuant to section 749-aa of article 18-B of the Judiciary Law. The defendants are all members of the Police Department of the City of New York. They were indicted in five counts, the first of which charges them with violation of section 813-b of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which makes it a felony for law enforcement officials to engage in wire tapping without a court order; the second count charges them with a violation of section 738 of the Penal Law, which interdicts wire tapping or eavesdropping; the third count charges them with a violation of section 742 of the Penal Law which prohibits the possession of eavesdropping instruments wdth an unlawful intent; the fourth count charges them with a violation of section 1423 of the Penal Law, which declares that the crime of malicious mischief is committed when there is an illegal physical disturbance of telephone lines; the fifth count charges the defendants with the crime of conspiracy to violate the eavesdropping statute.

It is quite obvious that all of these charges stem from the same transaction.

In support of his application, the District Attorney sets forth the usual statutory reasons for the granting of a motion for a special panel. None of the reasons are sufficiently persuasive to warrant the granting of this motion. The issues of fact to be determined are simple. The questions of law which will undoubtedly arise are for the court. Wide public comment concerning members of the Police Department cannot be avoided under a free press. The qualifications of a member of a special panel and that of a member of a regular panel are the same, other than that the former must entertain belief in capital punishment while the latter need not. The identity of the defendants or their station in life should not be the determining factor in deciding this motion. Issues of greater complexity than the one concerned here have been decided by petit jurors. The motion is, therefore, denied.

Submit order.