alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

# AGENCY:

Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of Energy.

# ACTION:

Notice of open meeting; Correction.

# SUMMARY:

The Department of Energy (DOE), on March 15, 2012, published a notice of open meeting announcing an open meeting of the Efficiency and Renewables Advisory Committee (ERAC). The meeting date has been extended to include April 18, 2012. As a result, the language is being corrected in this notice.

## Corrections

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of March 15, 2012, in FR DOC. 2012-6270, on page 15362, please make the following corrections:                    

                        In the                         **DATES**                         heading, first column, first line, before the existing text, please add “Wednesday, April 18, 2012, 1 p.m.-4:30 p.m. (EDT).                    

                        In the                         **ADDRESSES**                         heading, first column, second line, please remove “Room 8E-089” and add in its place “Room 1E-245 and Room 8E-089, on April 18 and April 19 respectively”.                    

                        In the                         **SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION**                         heading,                         *Public Participation,*                         second column, first paragraph, fifth line, correct the second sentence to read “The public comment period will take place between 2:30 p.m. and 3 p.m. on the second day of the meeting, Thursday, April 19, 2012.”                    

Issued in Washington, DC, on March 22, 2012.

LaTanya R. Butler,

Acting Deputy Committee Management Officer.

[FR Doc. 2012-7426 Filed 3-27-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
MEDIA 

MARKETING GRAPHIC DESIGN PUBLIC RELATIONS EVENTS 

H 

E in 

< 

UJ 

9 

i 

July 30, 2010 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

As a local business with many clients that fly for business I am writing in supportof 

'Option 1' of Gulfstream International's proposal to continue offering essential a^C 

service to the Oil City/Franklin community. 

I have been involved in helping the airport market their new commercial air service. It 

has been very difficult for many businesses to fly customers and colleagues in to the 

area as well as fly out for business. 

Recently OC Bell of the Venango Regional Airport met with Sperian Fall Protection. 

Sperian is a local business with international locations. Mr. Bell addressed the need for 

Sperian workers to support the local air service. Sperian has told us that they hope to 

fly more and will make an effort to always check travel options through the Venango 

Regional Airport. 

We were without commercial air service for long enough that travelers got use to flying 

out of other larger market airports. Now we are finally starting to see a change in habits 

and a recognition that our air service is needed. 

In 2009 the airport was recognized as the Venango Chamber of Commerce's Business of 

the Year. Community leaders realize that the airport is an asset and the air service is a 

important to our economic competitiveness and quality of life. We are prepared to fight 

for the air service. I and my colleagues will commit to always checking travel through 

the local air service first and flying from Franklin whenever possible. 

I will also work with Gulfstream on the new Save our Service campaign to continue to 

push for increases in air travel by the public. 

Please allow us to keep our air service and implement our new marketing efforts fully. 

214.1 AliOgiieny Blvd. 

Suite 2 

POBox 18? 

Reno, PA 16343 

Thank you for your consideration. 

Sincerely, 

(814) 671.8S98 

(814) 678.7799 

IVloxieMediaCreat^ve.com 

Emily E.Gill 

Creative Director
#### Leroy HONEYCUTT, Jr. and Bobby Ray Norris v. STATE of Mississippi.

No. 58324.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

May 31, 1989.

Rehearing Denied June 28, 1989.

Paul R. Scott, Wilroy, Scott & Rutherford, Hernando, Jack R. Jones, III, Taylor, Jones, Alexander, Greenlee, Seale & Ryan, Southaven, for appellant.

Mike Moore, Atty. Gen. by Leyser Q. Morris, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Jackson, for appellee.

Appeal from Circuit Court, DeSoto County; George C. Carlson, Jr., Judge. '

Before ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., and ROBERTSON and BLASS, JJ.

AFFIRMED.

HAWKINS and DAN M. LEE, P.JJ., and PRATHER, SULLIVAN, ANDERSON and PITTMAN, JJ., concur.
III

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. RES. 203

To authorize document production, testimony, and representation of Senate

employees, in a matter before the Grand Jury in the Western District

of Pennsylvania.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

OCTOBER 14, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for himself and Mr. DASCHLE) submitted the following resolution;

which was considered and agreed to

RESOLUTION

To authorize document production, testimony, and representation of Senate employees, in a matter before the Grand

Jury in the Western District of Pennsylvania.

Whereas, in a proceeding before a grand jury in the United

States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania, documents have been subpoenaed from the offices of Senators Arlen Specter and Rick Santorum, and

testimony from Senate employees may be requested;

Whereas, by the privileges of the Senate of the United States

and rule XI of the standing Rules of the Senate, no evidence under the control or in the possession of the Senate can, by administrative or judicial process, be taken

from such control or possession but by permission of the

Senate;
2

SRES 203 ATS

Whereas, when it appears that evidence under the control or

in the possession of the Senate may promote the administration of justice, the Senate will take such action as will

promote the ends of justice consistently with the privileges of the Senate; and

Whereas, pursuant to section 703(a) and 704(a)(2) of the

Ethics in Government Act of 1978 (2 U.S.C. §§ 288b(a)

and 288c(a)(2)), the Senate may direct its counsel to

represent Members and employees of the Senate with respect to any subpoena, order, or request for testimony or

the production of documents relating to their official responsibilities: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved, That the records custodians in the offices

2 of Senator Rick Santorum and Senator Arlen Specter, and

3 any other employee of the Senate from whom testimony

4 or document production may be required, are authorized

5 to testify and produce documents in this grand jury pro6 ceeding or in any related proceeding, except concerning

7 matters for which a privilege should be asserted.

8 SEC. 2. The Senate Legal Counsel is authorized to

9 represent Senators Specter and Santorum and any em10 ployee of the Senate in connection with the document pro11 duction and testimony authorized in section one of this

12 resolution.

Æ
EXHIBIT 99.1
                           ============

        Certification of Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
----------------------------------------------------------------------

In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Thai One On,
Inc. (Registrant), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the Report), I, Au E-Mun, Chief Financial Officer and
Principal Accounting Officer, hereby 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 quarterly 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 quarterly report fairly
        presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
        results of operations of Registrant.



Date:  November 13, 2004      /s/ Au E-Mun
                              ----------------------------------
                              Chief Financial Officer and
                              Principal Accounting Officer of
                              Thai One On, Inc., Registrant











<PAGE>
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

 

**REAL MEX RESTAURANTS, INC.**

**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 theQuarterly Report of Real Mex Restaurants, Inc (the “Company”) on Form 10-Qfor the fiscal quarter ended March 27, 2005, as filed with the Securitiesand Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Frederick F.Wolfe, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuantto 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

 

(1) The Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

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

 

May 10, 2005 

 

 
|   |   | By:  | /s/ FREDERICK F.  WOLFE                                    |   |
|--------|--------|-----------|------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|   |   |      | Frederick F.  Wolfe*President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

----
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**Independent Auditors’ Consent**

 

The Board of Directors 

SAFLINK Corporation: 

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in registration statements (Nos. 333-92072, 333-74253 and 033-68832) on Form S-8, registration statements(Nos. 033-62430, 333-75789, 333-23467, 333-01510, 333-58575, and 333-54084) on Form S-3, registration statement (No. 333-97221) on Form S-2 and registration statement (No. 333-68642) on Form S-1 of SAFLINK Corporation of our report dated February 7,2003, except as to Note 16, which is as of March 24, 2003, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of SAFLINK Corporation and subsidiary as of December 31, 2002 and 2001, and the related consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity (deficit) and comprehensive income (loss) and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2002, which report appears in the December 31, 2002, annual report on Form 10-K of SAFLINKCorporation. 

 

/s/    KPMG LLP 

 

Seattle, Washington 

March 24, 2003
#### MID-FLORIDA AT EUSTIS, INCORPORATED, Appellant, v. Noel E. GRIFFIN, Jr., Appellee.

No. 87-466.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

March 10, 1988.

Robert F. Vason, Jr. of Potter and Va-son, Mount Dora, for appellant.

Benjamin J. Cox of Cauthen, Robuck, Hennings, Milton, Oldham and Cox, Ta-vares, for appellee.

SHARP, Chief Judge.

Mid-Florida at Eustis, Inc. appeals from a temporary injunction entered against it on February 2, 1987. This court has jurisdiction. Fla.R.App.P. 9.030(b)(1)(B) & 9.130(a)(3)(B). We quash the injunction.

The dispute in this case arose out of Mid-Florida’s construction of a fence and dirt barrier between its property, which was used as an airport, and Noel E. Griffin, Jr.’s properties, which were leased to two enterprises. These enterprises, a parachute school and an aircraft maintenance business, are dependent, in part, upon use of the airport property and access thereto. The trial court ruled that regardless of the merits of the case, the lessee businesses would suffer irreparable harm unless an injunction were granted to maintain the status quo. Accordingly, it mandated removal of the fence and barriers, and required that access for aircraft from Griffin’s properties to the airport be maintained.

Prior to issuing a temporary injunction, a trial court must be certain that the petition or other pleadings demonstrate a prima facie, clear legal right to the relief requested. *See, e.g., Oxford International Bank and Trust, Ltd. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.,*374 So.2d 54 (Fla. 3rd DCA 1979), *cert. dismissed,*383 So.2d 1199 (Fla.1980). It must appear that the petition has a substantial likelihood of success, on the merits. *Heavener, Ogier Services, Inc. v. R.W. Florida Region, Inc.,*418 So.2d 1074 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982); *Russell v. Florida Ranch Lands, Inc.,*414 So.2d 1178 (Fla. 5th DCA 1982). The establishment of a clear legal right to the relief requested is an essential requirement prior to the issuance of a temporary injunction. *358*Reinhold Construction, Inc. v. City Council for City of Vero Beach,*429 So.2d 699 (Fla. 4th DCA 1983); *Heavener.*

We have reviewed the pleadings in this cause and conclude that appellee failed to allege any legal basis for seeking court ordered access to the appellant’s airport properties. Appellee pled only nuisance and access rights pursuant to a presumptive easement. We find no legal basis to enforce access to appellant’s property based on a continual use permit or on the fact that the property is zoned for use as an airport. Nor is the finding of a prescriptive easement warranted, as appellee's tenants’ rights of access were based upon leases between the parties. *See, Crigger v. Florida Power Corporation,*436 So.2d 937 (Fla. 5th DCA 1983).

Accordingly, we vacate the injunction and remand for further proceedings.

COBB and DANIEL, JJ., concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Wallace S. PUGH.

No. 88-KH-1068.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

May 20, 1988.

In re Pugh, Wallace S.; applying for writ of habeas corpus, supervisory and/or reme*1061dial writs; Parish of St. Charles, 29th Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 110775.

Denied on the showing made.

LEMMON, J., recused.
EXHIBIT 32.1


                            CORD BLOOD AMERICA, INC.

    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 Cord Blood America, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2006 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Matthew L. Schissler, Chief Executive Officer (Principal 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:

         (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.


Date:   May 15, 2006


/s/Matthew L. Schissler
------------------------------
Matthew L. Schissler
Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
#### Ronald Wayne CLARK, Appellant, v. The STATE of Oklahoma, Appellee.

No. F-82-320.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 4, 1984.

Rehearing Denied April 17, 1984.

E. Alvin Schay, Appellate Public Defender, Norman, for appellant.

Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen. of Okl., Robert W. Cole, Asst. Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for appellee.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BUSSEY, Presiding Judge.

The appellant, Ronald Wayne Clark, was convicted in Comanche County District Court, Case No. CRF-81-413, of Rape in the First Degree, After Former Conviction of a Felony, and two (2) counts of Sodomy, After Former Conviction of a Felony, was sentenced to twenty (20) years’ imprisonment for each charge, sentences to run consecutively, and he appeals.

The facts in this case are relatively simple. On the 22nd day of June, 1981, the prosecutrix went to the Holiday Bar in Lawton, Oklahoma, to pick up her termination check. While she was waiting for the manager, she met the appellant, whom she later positively identified as her assailant, and left with him to go to another bar. Instead of driving to the bar, the appellant drove out into the country where he orally and anally sodomized her at knife point, and raped her. The appellant was taken into custody three (3) days later whereupon he denied committing any of the charged offenses.

The appellant first argues that, because the alleged sexual acts occurred within a brief period of time and the State failed to specify which of the acts it would rely on for the conviction, the acts consti*1192tute a single offense, for which he is being punished three times. However, a careful review of the record clearly reveals that the acts constituted separate and distinct offenses.

The appellant further argues that the sentence given on each conviction is excessive.

This Court has consistently held that the question of excessiveness of punishment is to be determined by a study of all the facts and circumstances surrounding each individual case, and the Court of Criminal Appeals does not have the power to modify a sentence unless we can conscientiously say that under all the facts and circumstances the sentence was so excessive as to shock the conscience of the Court. *Edwards v. State,*645 P.2d. 528 (Okl.Cr.1982), and cases cited therein. In light of the nature of the offenses and the fact that the punishment imposed is well within the range provided by statute, we cannot conscientiously say that the sentence imposed shocks the conscience of the Court. See also, *Boyd v. State,*572 P.2d 276 (Okl.Cr.1977).

In accordance with the authorities above set forth, the judgments and sentences appealed from are AFFIRMED.

CORNISH and BRETT, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift
Energy Income Partners 1988-C, Ltd's balance sheet and statement of operations
contained in its Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 1999 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   Year
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Dec-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Dec-31-1999
<CASH>                                         62,311
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  24,024
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               86,335
<PP&E>                                         4,788,421
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (4,337,181)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 543,650
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,078
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     513,464
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   543,650
<SALES>                                        152,278
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               154,713
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  101,410<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                2,812
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            2,812
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   2,812
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0

<FN>
<F1>Includes lease operating expenses, production taxes and depreciation and
amortization expense. Excludes general and administrative and interest expense.
</FN>


</TABLE>
Amendment To Employment Agreement

     AMENDMENT dated as of February 10, 1997, to Employment Agreement dated as
of August 23, 1988, as amended, by and between Presstek, Inc., a Delaware
corporation (the "Company" or "Employer") and Richard A. Williams (the
"Executive").

                              W I T N E S S E T H:

     WHEREAS, the Executive is currently the Company's Vice
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer, and Secretary; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive entered into an Employment Agreement
dated as of February 23, 1988 (the "Agreement") which Agreement, as amended,
provided for the employment by the Company of the Executive until March 31,
1997; and

     WHEREAS, the Company wishes to formally extend the term of the Executive's
employment with the Company pursuant to the Agreement for a period expiring in
March 1998; and

     WHEREAS, the Company and Executive desire to amend the terms of the amended
Agreement as provided herein;

     NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements
hereinafter set forth, and other good and valuable consideration, the
sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the Company and Executive hereby
agree as follows:

     1) Section 2. (a) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that
Employer shall pay to Executive an annual salary of $175,000, payable in monthly
installments or more frequent pay periods as may be determined by the Employer.
Said salary shall be subject to periodic review by and possible upward
adjustment in the sole discretion of the Board of Directors of the Employer.

     2) Section 8 (d) of the Agreement is hereby amended to provide that the
Employer agrees to employ the Executive as an executive officer for a period
expiring on March 31, 1998.


<PAGE>


     3) Except as specifically set forth above, all of the other provisions of
the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.

     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this amendment as of
the date first written above.

                                        PRESSTEK, INC.

                                        By: s/ Robert E. Verrando
                                           --------------------------
                                           Robert E. Verrando
                                           President and COO

                                            s/ Richard A. Williams
                                           --------------------------
                                           Richard A. Williams
#### B.J. McADAMS, INC. v. Robert L. STEWART, Clerk of Court, and Danny Gene Hefner.

No. 88-C-0057.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 5, 1988.

In re McAdams, B.J. Inc.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit, No. CA86-1068; Parish of Rapides, 9th Judicial District Court, Div. “F”, No. 141498.

Prior report: La.App., 515 So.2d 666.

Denied.