alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 189 (Thursday, September 28, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24886]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 00-2106; MM Docket No. 00-33; RM-9816]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Jenner, CA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This document allots Channel 292A to Jenner, California, as 
that community's first local aural transmission service, in response to 
a petition for rule making filed by Brian Costello. See 65 FR 11539, 
March 3, 2000. The allotment requires a site restriction 10.1 
kilometers (6.3 miles) northwest of Jenner at coordinates 38-30-55 NL 
and 123-11-45 WL.

DATES: Effective October 30, 2000. A filing window for Channel 292A at 
Jenner, California, will not be opened at this time. Instead, the issue 
of opening a filing window for this channel will be addressed by the 
Commission in a subsequent Order.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202) 
418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 00-33, adopted September 6, 2000, and 
released September 15, 2000. The full text of this Commission decision 
is available for inspection and copying during normal business hours in 
the FCC's Reference Information Center (Room CY-A257), 445 Twelfth 
Street, SW., Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may 
also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Service, Inc., 1231 20th Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20036, (202) 857-3800.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303, 334, 336.


Sec. 73.202  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under California, 
is amended by adding Jenner, Channel 292A.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 00-24886 Filed 9-27-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Maxine Murray, Appellant, v New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, Defendant, and City of New York et al., Respondents.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals, as limited by *521her brief, from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Hutcherson, J.), dated June 29, 1989, as granted the separate motions of the defendants City of New York and Republic Elevator Company, Inc., for summary judgment.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which granted the motion of the defendant Republic Elevator Company, Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint as against it, and substituting therefor a provision denying that motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The plaintiff, an employee of the New York City Health & Hospitals Corporation, was injured in an elevator accident which occurred in Kings County Hospital, a building that the City of New York leased to the New York City Health *&*Hospitals Corporation. Since it cannot be said that the hospital building was leased for a "public purpose”, and the City of New York did not make a covenant to repair or reserve a right of reentry, there is no basis to impose liability against the City of New York, as a landlord lessor out of possession *(see, Guzman v Haven Plaza Hous. Dev. Fund Co.,*69 NY2d 559). Thus, the complaint insofar as it is asserted against the defendant City of New York was properly dismissed.

However, the motion of Republic Elevator Company, Inc., for summary judgment is premature since it has failed to provide the plaintiff with relevant facts exclusively within its knowledge and control. Thus, the court erred when it granted that defendant’s motion for summary judgment *(see,*CPLR 3212 [f]; *Terranova v Emil,*20 NY2d 493). Mangano, P. J., Bracken, Lawrence and Ritter, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 4.313

 

/Emblem of the Russian Federation/

 

FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION IN THE SPHERE OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY AND MASS MEDIA

 

LICENSE

 

No. 132675 dated September 08, 2015

 

For Rendering

 

mobile radio telephone services

 

This License is granted to

 

Closed Joint Stock Company

 

SIBINTERTELECOM

 

Primary State Registration Number of a Legal Entity 
 (Individual Entrepreneur) (OGRN, OGRNIP)

 

1027501155032

 

Tax Identification Number (TIN)

 

7536005204

 











 

Location address (place of residence):

 

47, Smolenskaya street, Chita, Zabaikalye Territory, 672027

 

The territory covered by telecommunications services is specified in the Appendix.

 

This License is granted for a term:

 

until September 08, 2020.

 

This License is granted by decision of the licensing body - Order dated July 10, 2015 No. 437-pчc

 

Appendix being an integral part of this license is executed on 2 sheets.

 

	
Deputy Head
    	
/signature/ O.A. Ivanov
    
	
 
    	
 
    
	
Stamp here

Official seal:
    MINISTRY OF TELECOM AND   MASS
   COMMUNICATIONS
   OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION
   FEDERAL SERVICE FOR SUPERVISION
   IN THE SPHERE
   OF COMMUNICATIONS, INFORMATION
   TECHNOLOGY
   AND MASS MEDIA
   PSRN 1087746736296
OFFICEOFTHEA-ITORNEYGENERALOFTEXAS 

Ronorrrble Charles 

Criairal Liatriat 

Corslouna, xerao 

Dear Sir: 

T. lianistcr 

Attornay 

6e are in reoelpt of 

In you roguest our opinion a8 

violation of A:tiole 433 of 

co6neon sahool district to em 

wire 0r 6 6mi who ia ths bro 

Of tUI$ sohcwl di6t 

shall appoint or 

person redated vi 

third degree by o 

voting or to 6Iiy 

tiGII Of 8~0 

or the trusteaswof a 

8s a teoahsr) the 

e .of one of the trueteee. 

ride6 that no ofiloer 

UbdiYiSiOn Of thi6 Stat6 

0 any pO6ftiOn Or Ssy 

artinity or rithin the 

80 appoint&g or 60 

oard when the eorapensafor ou.t OS or Srom prrblia 

osver, and Article 433, Pens1 

cd forth above shall apply 

on, tberQrore, prssented 16 whether the 

8 related to th6 truate6~ within the 

y or within the third degree by cronpanXIhio aaae of Cbinn v6. state, 86 Z&%. 

inity is that tie wbieh arises in kioneequar:oe or narr betwixt one of the rmrrisd pair atxd the bloo4 

relations of the other; . . . there is no at'linity between the 

hu6bandv6 brother and the wife*s siEtar,whloh is aalhd by the 

dOOtGr6 6ffinita6 aftinitati5, baoauna theD the CoIUleeti@l¶ 16 fOr6Bd, 

not between one of the spouoes and the klnsaren of the othsr, but 

between the irlnemn or both." 
eon, Churles '1. iranister, Page 2 

'-MS ~86 quote& rilth approval in the ca6e of Seabrook 

v. i"lrst IvstlGnsl irank Gf Port Lavaca, 171 Z. !-i. 247, wherein it 

ras held that a district judge whose wife and the wife Of one v,. 

Noble were cousins was note related to kr.~Nobl% by affinity. 

Blood relations cf the husband are not related to the blood relations 

of the wife. 2 c. J. 370. Cur answ%r to yr,ur question 16 that said 

Artlola 432 wculd not be violated by the employment which you mention. 

Yours very truly 

APPROVED JUL 14, 1939 

ATTORNEY CE.?NERAL OF TEXAS 

By LdG' 

Glenn R. LOW16 

AESiEtant
#### BOOTH v. STATE.

No. 23998.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

April 7, 1948.

No attorney for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint and information with the offense of selling *165whisky in a dry area. The jury found him guilty as charged and assessed his punishment by fine of $250.

The record before us contains no statement of facts or bills of exception. The proceedings are regular and nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4510 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4510

       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cyprodinil.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2012

  Mr. Coble introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To extend the temporary suspension of duty on Cyprodinil.

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

SECTION 1. CYPRODINIL.

    (a) In General.--Heading 9902.02.08 of the Harmonized Tariff 
Schedule of the United States (relating to Cyprodinil) is amended by 
striking ``12/31/2012'' and inserting ``12/31/2015''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) apply 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of enactment of 
this Act.
                                 <all>
```
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-20643

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

VICTOR DECASTRO-RODRIGUEZ, also known as Victor Rodriguez Decastro,

also known as Victor Decastro Rodriguez, also known as Victor R. Decastro, also

known as Victor R. Decastro-Sanchez, also known as Victor Rodriguez

Decastro-Sanchez,

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:12-CR-330-1

Before BENAVIDES, CLEMENT, and OWEN, Circuit Judges. 

PER CURIAM:*

Victor DeCastro-Rodriguez appeals the 36-month sentence he received for

illegal reentry after deportation. He asserts that the district court procedurally

erred in upwardly departing under U.S.S.G. § 4A1.3(a) from the guidelines range

of 24 to 30 months with an offense level of 10 and a criminal history category of

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

August 2, 2013

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

 Case: 12-20643 Document: 00512330094 Page: 1 Date Filed: 08/02/2013
No. 12-20643

VI to a sentence commensurate with an offense level of 12 and a criminal history

of VI, without explaining why it rejected the intermediate offense level.

We review the issue for plain error. See Puckett v. United States, 556 U.S.

129, 134-35 (2009). Although DeCastro-Rodriguez objected that his sentence

was procedurally and substantively unreasonable, he did not specifically address

the district court’s reliance on § 4A1.3, its conclusion that his criminal history

was under-represented, or its lack of explanation of why it rejected an

intermediate offense level in arriving at the sentence.

The district court’s failure to address the intermediate criminal history

category was not a clear or obvious error. See Puckett, 556 U.S. at 135. It is

apparent from the district court’s reasons that it imposed the 36-month sentence 

based on DeCastro-Rodriguez’s criminal background. The district court noted

the number of offenses within a period of approximately 14 years and the

repetition of certain offenses such as burglary and narcotics, as well as the fact

that DeCastro-Rodriguez had reached the highest criminal history category by

age 27 even though no criminal history points were awarded for his juvenile

convictions. See United States v. Ashburn, 38 F.3d 803, 809-10 (5th Cir. 1994)

(en banc). Further, the district court’s departure to a 36-month sentence, six

months above the top of the advisory guidelines range, fell shy of the sort of

departure for which this court has required an explicit statement of reasons for

rejecting each intermediate increase. See id. at 809-10. Accordingly, we find no

plain error. 

AFFIRMED.

2

 Case: 12-20643 Document: 00512330094 Page: 2 Date Filed: 08/02/2013
#### BYARS v. STATE.

No. 24672.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 1, 1950.

Rehearing Denied April 19, 1950.

Wm. J. Bragg, Memphis, Blair & Randle, Austin, for appellant.

C. Land, County Attorney, Memphis, George P. Blackburn, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

GRAVES, Judge.

Appellant was charged by complaint with the possession of wine for the purpose of sale in Hall County, a dry area, and assessed a fine by the jury of $150.00.

Appellant seems to confuse the statute under which this prosecution was filed. He is not herein charged with the sale of, nor possession for the purpose of sale, of a medicinal alcoholic product for beverage purposes, which was the case in the recently decided case or Ayars v. State, Tex.Cr. App,. 225 S.W.2d 835, in which we held that it was necessary ■to allege and prove that such was “knowingly done”, such act being a violation of a statewide statute, Art. 666 — 15(10), Vernon’s Ann.Tex.P.C., which requires that the sale of such medicinal products for beverage purposes be knowingly done. However, the word “knowingly” has been omitted from such statute in the amendment to Art. 666 — 15 (10), supra, which was passed by the 51st Legislature, Acts 1949, p. 1011, now Art. 666 — 15(11), which was.approved on July 7, 1949, and took effect 90 days thereafter. Not so, however, in the present case. Appellant is charged with a violation of the liquor law of Hall County, adopted by a •vote of the people, which is herein pleaded and proven.

It appears that the sheriff armed himself with a search warrant empowering him to search the premises of appellant for intoxicating liquors. It also appears that this warrant, together with the affidavit upon which it was based, was offered and read to the jury. This should not have been done. In order to justify the search, such warrant could have been read to the trial court outside of the presence of the jury, but should not have been read to them, it containing many hearsay statements. See Scott v. State. 150 Tex.Cr.R. 536, 202 S.W. 2d 945; Sheffield v. State, 118 Tex.Cr.R. 329, 37 S.W.2d 1038, and cases cited.

We think the search warrant could have been left out of the transaction altogether. The sheriff was possessed of a warrant of arrest. The right to arrest carries with it the right to search. Appellant was running a public place called the Drug Store Bus Stop. He sold clothing and other things. In executing his warrant, the sheriff entered the store and there saw bottles of Vitamin B Wine sitting on a shelf exposed for sale, and about :five cases thereof in sight. It was wine, a poor grade of wine, so the witnesses testified. Under the search warrant and permission of appellant, *170they searched a further (building and found another case of this same wine. Wine is a liquor containing alcohol in excess of four per centum by weight, and proof that an alcoholic beverage is “wine” shall be prima facie evidence that the same is liquor as defined in the law, Art. 666 — 3a, Vernon’s Ann.P.C.

On account of the introduction of the search warrant and affidavit before the jury, this judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

HAWKINS, P. J., absent'
#### WALTON v. STATE.

No. 26647.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 2, 1953.

See also, Tex.Cr.App., 262 S.W.2d 494.

C. S'. Farmer, Waco, for appellant.

Wesley Dice, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

BELCHER, Commissioner.

The conviction is for knowingly passing a forged instrument. The punishment was assessed at five years in the penitentiary.

There are no formal nor informal bills of exception. Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction.

Perry Eskew testified that on January 8, 1953, appellant passed to him the check described in the indictment, being in the sum of $44, with the name W. C. Hardin signed thereto as máker, in payment for groceries, receiving the balance in cash; that this check was returned by the bank marked “No Account,” and after search he was unable to locate any person by the name of W. C. Hardin. He further testified that he again saw appellant on January 10, 1953, when appellant wrote a check, except for the payee’s name, in his presence for the amount of $30 and signed the name of R. S. Smith as maker; that he and H. V. Boyd questioned appellant about this check and the one Eskew received on January 8, 1953, and appellant insisted to them that his name was R. S. Smith, and left to get identification and never returned. Appellant was later arrested.

*494The check described in the indictment dated January 8, 1953, was introduced in evidence and showed that it was drawn on the First National Bank of Waco, Texas, in the amount of $44 and the name W. C. Hardin appeared as maker.

Sheriff Maxey testified that he 'had served as a law enforcement officer for about twenty years in Waco and McLennan County and that he did not know any one by the name *oí*W. C. Hardin; that he had known appellant for about five years, and that his name was not Hardin nor Smith, but that it was Jeff Walton.

Charles G. Hawkins testified that 'he had worked in the First National Bank in Waco for thirty years; that there was no account with said bank in the name of W. C. Hardin, and further said he did not know any person by that name.

Appellant testified that he was not in the grocery store where Perry Eskew worked and did not see him on January 8, 1953, but that he was there on January 10, 1953, and before he selected any groceries Eskew and H. V. Boyd questioned him and showed him some checks and asked if he gave them, which he denied; that he told them his name was Jeff Walton and did not tell them it was Smith. He denied any knowledge of either of the checks in question. He wrote the names of W. C. Hardin and R. S. Smith several times which were introduced in evidence for comparison by the jury.

The jury resolved the issue of appellant’s guilt against him, and we conclude that t'he evidence is sufficient to sustain the conviction.

We note that the verdict and judgment find and adjudge the appellant guilty of passing a forged instrument, while the sentence shows that he was sentenced for forgery. The sentence will therefore be reformed to conform with the verdict and judgment and, as so reformed, the judgment is affirmed.

Opinion approved by the Court.
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
  (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 represents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of the Company.
 /s/ J. Eric Pike

J. Eric Pike
Chairman, Chief Executive Officer and President
September 1, 2009/s/ Anthony K. Slater

Anthony K. Slater
Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
September 1, 2009
AVS

Quality Management

System

Title: Domestic New Action Worksheet with 58

QPM#

AIR-ANM-030-F7

Date: December 17, 2008

Revision

1

Record of Contacts

FDMS Docket No. FAA-llHtJtll{}- ~

With whom outside the FAA has this proposal been discussed (e.g., ATA, RAA, ALPA, etc.)?

Organization Person Contacted Date

Boeing Bhupinder Singh 1211612009

ATA Joe White 1211612009

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED

Check the Master Ust to Verify That This is the Correct Revision Before Use
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO § 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K of International Coal Group, Inc. (the “Company”) for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned officers of the Company certifies, that, to such officer’s knowledge: 

 

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other documentauthenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to International Coal Group, Inc. and will beretained by International Coal Group, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. 

/s/ Bennett K. Hatfield 

                                                                                                            

Name:    Bennett K. Hatfield 

Title:      President and Chief Executive Officer 

/s/ William D. Campbell 

                                                                                                            

Name:    William D. Campbell 

Title:      Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary 

               (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date: March 30, 2006
CERTIFICATION OF CEO PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 Exhibit 32.1  Certification of
Periodic Report  Pursuant
to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. §1350, the undersigned
officer of Worldwide Energy and Manufacturing USA, Inc. (the
Company), hereby certifies that, to the undersigneds knowledge: (1)
the Companys Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the Report)
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
applicable, 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:
August 18, 2009/s/ Jimmy
WangName:
Jimmy WangTitle:
Chief Executive
Officer