alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 64 (Tuesday, April 3, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 20051]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8001]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Meeting of the CJIS Advisory Policy Board

AGENCY: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

ACTION: Meeting notice.

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

SUMMARY: The purpose of this notice is to announce the meeting of the 
Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Advisory Policy Board 
(APB). The CJIS APB is a federal advisory committee established 
pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). This meeting 
announcement is being published as required by Section 10 of the FACA.
    The CJIS APB is responsible for reviewing policy issues and 
appropriate technical and operational issues related to the programs 
administered by the FBI's CJIS Division, and thereafter, making 
appropriate recommendations to the FBI Director. The programs 
administered by the CJIS Division are the Integrated Automated 
Fingerprint Identification System/Next Generation Identification, 
Interstate Identification Index, Law Enforcement Online, National Crime 
Information Center, National Instant Criminal Background Check System, 
National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement National Data 
Exchange, and Uniform Crime Reporting.
    The meeting will be open to the public on a first come, first 
seated basis. Any member of the public wishing to file a written 
statement concerning the CJIS Division's programs or wishing to address 
this session should notify the CJIS Designated Federal Officer, R. 
Scott Trent at (304) 625-5263 at least 72 hours prior to the start of 
the session. The notification should contain the requestor's name, 
corporate designation, and consumer affiliation or government 
designation along with a short statement describing the topic to be 
addressed and the time needed for the presentation. A requestor will 
ordinarily be allowed no more than 15 minutes to present a topic.
    Dates and Times: The APB will meet in open session from 8:30 a.m. 
until 5 p.m., on June 6-7, 2012.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will take place at The Adams Mark Hotel, 120 
Church Street, Buffalo, New York 14202, telephone (614) 228-5050.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Inquiries may be addressed to Ms. 
Melody D. Cooper; Management and Program Assistant; CJIS Training and 
Advisory Process Unit, Resources Management Section; FBI CJIS Division, 
Module C2, 1000 Custer Hollow Road, Clarksburg, West Virginia 26306-
0149; telephone (304) 625-2601, facsimile (304) 625-5090.

    Dated: March 27, 2012.
R. Scott Trent,
CJIS Designated Federal Officer, Criminal Justice Information Services 
Division, Federal Bureau of Investigation.
[FR Doc. 2012-8001 Filed 4-2-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-P
[No. 14750-9-III.

Division Three.

July 23, 1996.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Anthony K. Bradford, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for Spokane County, No. 94-8-01452-4, Royce Moe, Commissioner, entered February 10, 1995. *Affirmed*by unpublished opinion per Thompson, J., concurred in by Schul-theis, A.C.J.', and Munson, J.
#### Joe Riley SHOCKLEY, Jr., Petitioner, v. The Honorable Gordon R. MELSON, District Judge For the Twenty-Second Judicial District of Oklahoma, Respondent.

No. P-82-32.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma.

Jan. 28, 1982.

*554William N. Peterson, Dist. Atty., Gregg M. Smith and Clay B. Pettis, Asst. Dist. Attys., Holdenville, Jan Eric Cartwright, Atty. Gen., Oklahoma City, for respondent.

Stipe, Gossett, Stipe, Harper & Estes, McAlester, for petitioner.

ORDER GRANTING WRIT OF PROHIBITION

NOW on this 26th day of January, 1982, this Court having heard the oral arguments of the respective parties in the above styled and numbered cause, finds that Senator Gene Stipe has at all times prior to the current legislative session personally represented the petitioner in the District Court of Hughes County, Case No. J-80-15, and that in September, 1981, a jury trial was held in an adjudicatory proceeding in which a mistrial was ordered when the jury could not arrive at a verdict. The court further finds that on the 21st day of December, 1981, Judge Gordon R. Melson informed the respective parties that he was considering setting another jury trial to begin on December 28th, 1981, to which the State objected. Jury trial has been tentatively scheduled in the District Court of Hughes County, Case No. J-80-15, for February 1, 1982, and accordingly, petitioner, by and through his attorney, Senator Gene Stipe, has filed a motion for legislative continuance, in all respects complying with the guidelines set forth by this Court in *Sorrels v. Barnett,*534 P.2d 692 (Okl.Cr.1975). The district court denied said motion and the petitioner has filed this application for writ of prohibition in accordance with 12 O.S. 1971, § 667.

The respondent contends that since the provisions of 12 O.S.1971, § 667, refer only to civil or criminal cases, a motion for continuance of a jury trial in a juvenile proceeding does not fall within the parameter of the statute. We disagree. A jury trial in an adjudicatory stage of a juvenile proceeding falls squarely within the ambit of 12 O.S.1971, § 667.

IT IS THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THIS COURT that the District Court of Hughes County is prohibited from conducting a jury trial in Case No. J-80-15 until thirty (30) days after the adjournment of the current legislative session, in accordance with 12 O.S.1971, § 667.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

WITNESS OUR HANDS AND THE SEAL OF THIS COURT this 26th day of January, 1982.

BRETT, P. J.

BUSSEY, J.

CORNISH, J.
#### Vuynovich et vir *v.*Midland Borough, Appellant.

Argued November 15, 1961.

Before Ervin, Wright, Woodside, Watkins, Montgomery, and Flood, JJ. (Rhodes, P. J., absent).

Before McCreary, P. J.

- *Ralph F..Scalera,*with him *Robert J. Master,*and *Suffoletta é Masters,*and *Wallover, Barrichman & Scalera,*for appellant.

*Clyde Holt, Jr.,*with him *Holt & Holt,*for appellees.

*64December 14, 1961:

Opinion

Per Curiam,

The order of the Court of Common Pleas of Beaver County is affirmed on the opinion of President Judge Robert E. McCreary for the court below, reported at 25 Pa. D. & C. 2d 509.
**EXHIBIT 32.1****CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to hisknowledge:     (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ RICHARD J. NAUGHTON         Richard J. Naughton    Chief Executive Officer  
 

 
**CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, theundersigned officer of Xenonics Holdings, Inc (the “Company”) hereby certifies that, to herknowledge:     (i) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the quarter ended March 31,2007 (the “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d),as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and     (ii) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.       Dated: May 15, 2007 /s/ DONNA G. LEE         Donna G. Lee    Chief Financial Officer
**Exhibit32.2**

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

SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of American Patriot Financial Group, Inc. (the “Company”) onForm 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2007, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, T. Don Waddell, ChiefFinancial 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:

(1)           The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities and Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)           The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operations of the Company.
|   |   |                    |
|--------|--------|-------------------------|
|        |   |                    |
|   |   | /s/ T. Don Waddell      |
|   |   | T. Don Waddell          |
|   |   | Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | August 14, 2007         |

 

1

----
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTIN

**Honorable** Jaak ?. Hemphill **Oounty Auditor**  Upton county BsWn, Taxa

. 

## Dearsir:

of thxd.- ad8 in part an inion on eaoh ofRonorable Jaak F. Ilemphill, pego 2Honorebls Jack F. Hemphill, page 3
Under Brticl66 

### 3883end 

### 3891, Vornon*s Aunoteted Ci+iil Stabutoe, tho 6mx26uun ccqpsnrat;ion end the 6X0668 tebs %llowed to bs retelnsd by the county judge, county aad Uistslct o&irke, ecu&y attorn%y, 

## aherirr, end ta~,e%a6saorcollector 16 $3000.00 each ~poryear. The county offlalel.6 Of mid OOUnty.

em n01 cOmpaB6et~don an RIUZURl 6alarjr bea$a. The tinimum @elary,-ef fall. raid county offioiels, sxooptin&j the auditor and the county oomml66ionors cannot br less then the total sumearned by ~6ach66 oompsn~satlon by 6.al.doftlcor in hia aeid otflciel capeoitg for the fieoel year 1935. Tho meximnrn

salary of seld Ofrid oannot be 

### morethen tho mexianuuallowed oech of said offioials undar law6 ati8t‘ing **An&gist 24,**  

### 1935,except that 6uch mexlmummaybe inoree%ed one prr oent for .eaah $llOOO,O~O.OO~veluetion or fraotional * part ther6oi, An exoaa6 of #l0,000(~00.00 .veluetlon ovdr an4 above ths ~ximum amount allowed saoh ofiiasre ~undsr lawtb sxistlpg cm

### August**~24; 1935;**  provided, how6War, no salarias oovored by 6eld Ssotion 15, supra; shall 6xoeed the 6~6 of. 

### ~.:$4*~500.00. _~' ~'Honoreblo Jack F. Hemphill, pegs 4

wenowcousidor ycur .QwEt~On wf&hroraronca tom the animal salam of the oounty audtt~f. Soot&on 1 0r Sonete Bill no. 119, AOt6 or th6 47th h~iEl6tUFtl, 19W; providsbrHonorable SaolcB. Hsmphill, page 5

*xn oouutiee &l&~ the, rollowi& asseward ta3&a8ions, respwtival~, as &hmn by tha total.asssserd valuationa or all pxwpsrBi4r ~OertWlad’ by the oowtfHonozwble Jaok F. Eemphill, pago 6 and 1484

# than

$30,000,000 not to exoaad

ard411 williem8 AHtAMM A88i%ttult
III

107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. CON. RES. 337

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 20, 2002

Received and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION

Recognizing the teams and players of the Negro Baseball

Leagues for their achievements, dedication, sacrifices,

and contributions to baseball and the Nation.

Whereas even though African-Americans were excluded from

playing in the major leagues of baseball with their Caucasian counterparts, the desire of some African-Americans

to play baseball could not be repressed;

Whereas African-Americans began organizing their own professional baseball teams in 1885;
2

HCON 337 RFS

Whereas 6 separate baseball leagues, known collectively as

the Negro Baseball Leagues, were organized by AfricanAmericans between 1920 and 1960;

Whereas the Negro Baseball Leagues included exceptionally

talented players;

Whereas Jackie Robinson, whose career began in the Negro

Baseball Leagues, was named Rookie of the Year in 1947

and subsequently led the Brooklyn Dodgers to 6 National

League pennants and a World Series championship;

Whereas by achieving success on the baseball field, AfricanAmerican baseball players helped break down color barriers and integrate African-Americans into all aspects of

society in the United States;

Whereas during World War II, more than 50 Negro Baseball

League players served in the Armed Forces of the United

States;

Whereas during an era of sexism and gender barriers, 3

women played in the Negro Baseball Leagues;

Whereas the Negro Baseball Leagues helped teach the people

of the United States that what matters most is not the

color of a person’s skin, but the content of that person’s

character and the measure of that person’s skills and

abilities;

Whereas only in recent years has the history of the Negro

Baseball Leagues begun receiving the recognition that it

deserves; and

Whereas baseball is the national pastime and reflects the history of the Nation: Now, therefore, be it

1 Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate

2 concurring), That Congress recognizes the teams and play-
3

HCON 337 RFS

1 ers of the Negro Baseball Leagues for their achievements,

2 dedication, sacrifices, and contributions to baseball and

3 the Nation.

Passed the House of Representatives September 19,

2002.

Attest: JEFF TRANDAHL,

Clerk.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. Res. 67 Agreed to Senate (ATS)]

106th CONGRESS
  1st Session
S. RES. 67

 To authorize representation of Secretary of the Senate in the case of 
       Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 17, 1999

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 To authorize representation of Secretary of the Senate in the case of 
       Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al.

Whereas, in the case of Bob Schaffer, et al. v. William Jefferson Clinton, et 
        al., C.A. No. 99-K-201, pending in the United States District Court for 
        the District of Colorado, the plaintiffs have named the Secretary of the 
        Senate as a defendant; 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 officers 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 
the Secretary of the Senate in the case of Bob Schaffer, et al. v. 
William Jefferson Clinton, et al.
                                 <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 QC Holdings, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Don Early, Chairman of the Board and 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:



| | (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.
| | --- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: November 14, 2005



/s/ Don EarlyDon EarlyChairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer




Page 36
June 15, 2015

Mr. Donald Bussiere

465 Middle Rd. Sabattus, ME 04280

Dear Mr. Bussiere :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your June 4, 2015, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2015- 2105), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Governor of North Carolina 

State Capitol 

20301 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-030 1 

Dear Governor Perdue: 

On May 27,201 0, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 4 sent you a 

letter regarding the 1997 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) bi-state 

Charlotte-Gastonia-Rock Hill nonattainrnent area (bi-state Charlotte area). Specifically, the 

May 27,2010, letter announced that the sanctions clocks for the finding of failure to submit the 

attainment demonstration for the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS issued to North Carolina on 

May 8,2009, for the bi-state Charlotte area, were now stopped. In that letter, we inadvertently 

stated that the revised state implementation plan submissions regarding the attainment 

demonstrations were received from the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural 

Resources (NC DENR) on November 12,2008, and April 5,2009. EPA actually received the 

submissions from NC DENR on November 12,2009, and April 5,20 10. 

We are sending this letter to correct the typographical errors with regard to the dates 

(specifically, the year) of receipt for the bi-state Charlotte area attainment demonstration 

submissions for North Carolina. See attached for the corrections noted on the original letter. 

The other information in the May 27,2010, letter remains in effect. 

Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me 

at (404) 562-8357 or have a member of your staff contact Kenneth R. Lapierre, Acting Director, 

Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division at (404) 562-9077. 

Sincerely, 

Am 

A. Stanley Meiburg 

Acting Regional Administrator 

Enclosure cc: Mr. Dee Freeman, NC DENR 

Mr. Robert W. King, SC DHEC 

B. Keith Overcash, P.E., NC DENR DAQ 

Mrs. Myra Reece, SC DHEC BAQ 

Mr. Don Willard, Mecklenburg County Air Quality 

Internet Address (URL) http://www.epa.gov 

Recycled/Recyclable .Printed wlh Vegetable Ofi Based Inks on Recyded Paper (Minimum 30% Postconsumer)
#### Bernard Weisinger, Plaintiff, *v.*Bernard Berfond et al., Defendants.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Kings County,

December 3, 1958.

*Joseph L. Forscher*for plaintiff.

*Charles Snow*for defendants.

M. Henry Martuscello, J.

Plaintiff moves to strike out defendants’ notice of examination or, in the alternative, deferring examination until after plaintiff’s examination of defendants. Defendants cross-move to vacate plaintiff’s notice of examination on the ground that defendants are entitled to priority in the examination and on the further ground that insufficient notice of the examination was given.

The action is predicated upon an alleged joint venture between plaintiff and the defendants Berfond and Bae to impress a trust upon real estate owned by the defendants or some of them and for an accounting. The answer is a general denial with separate defenses of the Statute of Frauds. Plaintiff objects to defendants’ notice of examination of plaintiff at defendants’ attorney’s office, which is improper *(Schatzkin*v. *Schatzkin,*278 App. Div. 934; *Schulsinger*v. *Cowles,*7 Misc 2d 411), and defendants make the objection that only 12 days’ notice by mail was given of the examination, which is a mere irregularity (V*alz*v. *Sheepshead Bay Bungalow Corp.,*249 N. Y. 122; Civ. Prac. Act, §§ 105, 109) which the court may correct by setting the time of examination *(Isenburger*v. *Arrowhead Mills,*212 App. Div. 121).

The principal question for determination, however, is as to the priority of the examinations sought. Defendants first served notice of examination at the time they served their answer and demand for a bill of particulars. In such cases defendants are *756entitled to examination first unless it is shown that special circumstances require the discretion of the court to direct a different order of examination.' *(Desiderio*v. *Gabrielli,*284 App. Div. 976; *Tollis*v. *New York, New Haven & Hartford R. R.,*282 App. Div. 885.) Even under the old rule which held that an examination before trial could only be had to prove the applicant’s case, an exception was made and examinations granted where the litigation involved a fiduciary relationship or that of principal and agent and the facts were peculiarly within the knowledge of the adverse party, thus recognizing special circumstances by reason of the nature of such actions. Under the pleadings in the instant case involving a fiduciary relationship between the parties, the court feels that special circumstances exist which entitle plaintiff to priority of examinations.

The defendants are directed to appear for examination at Special Term, Part II of this court on a day and at a time to be agreed upon by the parties and fixed in the order to be entered hereon. If the parties cannot agree, the court will fix the time. Plaintiff is directed to appear for examination by defendants at Special Term, Part II of this court following the conclusion of plaintiff’s examination of defendants.

Motions granted as indicated and in all other respects, denied.

Settle order on notice.