alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 232 (Friday, December 1, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75312-75313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30619]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration

[TA-W-38,158]


Cookson Semiconductor Packaging Material, a Division of Alpha-Fry 
Technologies, Warwick, RI; Notice of Termination of Investigation

    Pursuant to section 21 of the Trade Act of 1974, an investigation 
was initiated on October 2, 2000, in response to a petition filed on 
behalf of workers at Cookson Semiconductor Packaging Material, a 
division of Alpha-Fry Technologies, Warwick, Rhode Island.
    The three workers submitting the petition have requested that the 
petition be withdrawn. Consequently, further

[[Page 75313]]

investigation in this case would serve no purpose, and the 
investigation has been terminated.

    Signed in Washington, DC this 7th day of November, 2000.
Linda G. Poole,
Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 00-30619 Filed 11-30-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 230 (Wednesday, November 29, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 71099-71100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30342]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-10-001]


Ozark Gas Transmission, L.L.C.; Notice of Compliance Filing

November 22, 2000.

    Take notice that on November 17, 2000, Ozark Gas Transmission, 
L.L.C. (Ozark) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheets, to be 
effective November 1, 2000:

Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 104A
Substitute First Revised Sheet No. 105

    Ozark asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with the 
Commission's order issued October 27, 2000, in Docket No. RP01-10-000.
    Ozark states that it is filing to remove from its tariff provisions 
providing for the imposition of transportation charges for imbalance 
netting and trading pursuant to the directive of the Commission's order 
in this proceeding.
    Ozark further states that it has served copies of this filing upon 
the company's jurisdictional customers and interested state 
commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Section 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may

[[Page 71100]]

be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 
202-208-2222 for assistance). Comments and protests may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2110(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-30342 Filed 11-28-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Case 3:22-cr-00393-X Document 33 Filed 09/12/23 Page 1 of 1 PageID 59
**Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record**

**Plant ID 05983**  **Removed from Public**  **(Non-CBI) Docket**  **1 Copyright** 

**Flag 2**  **File Name Description**  x 

### 05983\05983_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook x 

### 05983\05983_Followup Questions.xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05983\05983_Followup Response2.xls Email communications regarding questions on the survey response



### 05983\05983_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted x 

### 05983\05983_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05983\05983_PartB.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05983\05983_PartC.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05983\05983_PartD.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05983\05983_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file x 

### 05983\05983_telecon1.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05983\05983_telecon2.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response x 

### 05983\05983_telecon3.pdf Email communications regarding questions on the survey response



### 05983\Cerification Statment Plant ID_05983.PDF Plant certification statement 

### 05983\Supporting Documentation\05983_MAP - 1.PDF Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey x 

### 05983\Supporting Documentation\WB-1.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey



### 05983\05983_Cover Letter.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database

. 2Copyright documents are available from the docket.
E!LIZABETH OC UTTLE.

SENATOR .f ~Tt i 0L5iP.tCT

l[CISI-~Th:E orncz OLDG

:; 'H·W.itf-N ':;'r~tL't

GLU!S rALLS i-r,' !'}~{l~

~il~j 741·HW~

\\'£1} t\D{)P.[S5

December 2. 2013

Albert Muldoon

Office of Aviation Analysis

US Department of Transportation

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

Dear Mr. Muldoon,

As the New York State Senate representative for the 45th district, please accept my strong

support of the Town of Harrietstown and the Adirondack Regional Airport's efforts to expand

offered services through Cape Air to New York City.

Beyond their current service to and from Logan International in Boston, this move further opens

this major resort region to air travelers. conventions and also support for Lake Placid's world

sports competitions. Already there is growing support of this service, ensuring successful

implementation and a continued source of funding.

Additionally, the large and growing business community in our region would no longer have to

leave our state or drive hours to access service to NYC and beyond. And our ability to attract

business investment and jobs would be significantly enhanced.

1strongly support this endeavor and 1hope it will be given favorable consideration.

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

Sincerely,

Iv~~CN-;u~L

flizab~thQl. Little

Senator !

EOUsjl

o
#### BROWN v. GRANT et al.

No. 10305.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. San Antonio.

May 18, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 17, 1938.

Todd & Todd, of Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Robert Plaegelin, of Corpus Christi, for appellees.

SMITH, Chief Justice.

This is an attempted appeal by Arthur Brown from a judgment in a forcible entry and detainer action, brought by Mrs. Nellie Grant and her husband, in which the defendant was adjudged guilty and restitution was decreed, .together with an award of $40 damages in favor of the plaintiffs. Brown gave notice of appeal, filed appeal and supersedeas bond, and brought the record, except a statement of facts, to this Court. He has briefed the case, but appellees have ignored the appeal.

It is provided in Art. 3992, R.S.1925, relating to forcible entry and detainer cases, as follows: “The judgment of the county court finally disposing of the cause *186shall be conclusive of the litigation, and no further appeal shall be allowed, except where the judgment shall be for dafnages in an amount exceeding one hundred dollars.”

Article 3992 is constitutional (Beacon Lumber Company v. Brown, Tex.Com.App., 14 S.W.2d 1022), and has been uniformly upheld. Beacon Lumber Company v. Brown, supra; Stricklin v. Joslin, Tex.Civ.App., *7*S.W.2d 165; Cox, Inc., v. Knight, Tex.Civ.App., 50 S.W.2d 915; Madison v. Martinez, Tex.Civ.App., 56 S.W.2d 908.

Obviously, this appeal must be dismissed, and it is so ordered.
IN THE MATTER OF REGENT AEROSPACE CORPORATION

FDMS No. FAA-2013-0852

MOTION TO ALTER OR AMEND INITIAL DECISION

Filed by Respondent

This document is located at the FAA Hearing Docket,

600 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20591

This document is not publicly available. 

See Protective Order issued by ALJ Goodwin, dated December 1, 2014
#### SHAFFER v. STATE.

No. 20091.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 25, 1939.

E. G. Pharr and C. C. McKinney, both of Cooper, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

KRUEGER, Judg-e.

The conviction is for possession of intoxicating liquor in dry area for purposes of sale. The punishment assessed is a fine of $150.

Appellant’s first contention is that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. The evidence adduced by the state, briefly stated, shows that on the night of March 11, 1938, two Agents of the Liquor Control Board went to a house where appellant lived to make a search of the premises. The only persons they found at the house were appellant’s wife and a small child. They entered, made a search for intoxicating liquor, and found twenty-two cans of beer and a few bottles of soda water in a tub in a southeast room. They also found part of a pint of whisky in the kitchen, a package containing two pints in a quilt box in another room, and a pint in the bed in which the child was sleeping. In the drawer of a machine they found still another pint. The officers did not see the appellant at all. They did not know when he had last been there or when he had left.

Mrs. Shaffer testified that the two men came to her home on the night in question and made the search of her home; that the two pints of whisky found in the quilt box belonged to her brother, having been left there by him about an hour before the search was made. That the remainder of the whisky belonged to her and her husband; that it was kept by them for their private use.

Under the holding of this court in the case of Poston v. State, 119 S.W.2d 1053, we entertain serious doubts as to the sufficiency of the testimony to sustain appellant’s conviction. However since the judgment must be reversed on another point, we do not deem it necessary to now decide the question, inasmuch as the state, on another trial, may strengthen its case.

Appellant, in due time, objected to the court’s failure to instruct the jury on the law of circumstantial evidence and submitted to the court a special instruction thereon with the request that it be submitted to the jury in connection with the court’s main charge. The court declined to submit appellant’s special requested charge or one of like import. We think .the case against appellant rested upon circumstantial evidence and that the learned trial court fell into error in declining to submit the special requested instruction. *144There is no testimony' in the record that appellant sold whisky or beer at his home. No one saw him in actual possession of the intoxicating liquor found by the searching officers, nor is there any testimony that he was on the premises, or when he had last been there.

. For the error herein discussed, the judgment of the trial court is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
IIA

103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1347

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 22, 1993

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural

Resources

AN ACT

To modify the boundary of Hot Springs National Park.

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

3 That the boundary of Hot Springs National Park is modi4 fied as depicted on the map entitled ‘‘Proposed Boundary

5 Map’’, numbered 128/80015, and dated August 5, 1985.

Passed the House of Representatives June 21, 1993.

Attest: DONNALD K. ANDERSON,

Clerk.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF KAYENTA KREATIONS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS
ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                               0
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                        682
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   682
<PP&E>                                          11,323
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,419
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   6,586
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,853
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,019
<OTHER-SE>                                     (3,286)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     6,586
<SALES>                                            377
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   377
<CGS>                                              210
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      210
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 6,551
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 275
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (6,659)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,659)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,659)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
<PAGE>

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Packeteer, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-Q for the three months ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, David Yntema, as
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:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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: April 30, 2004                             /s/ DAVID YNTEMA

                                                 -----------------------------
                                                 David Yntema
                                                 Chief Financial Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, 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 the Company and will be retained
by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission staff
upon request.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO**

**18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of SITEL Corporation (the “Company”)on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed withthe Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,James F. Lynch, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.

 

 
| /s/ James F. Lynch                          |       |
|---------------------------------------------|------------|
| **    James  F. Lynch** | ** ** |
| Chief Executive Officer                     |       |
|                                        |       |
| November 9, 2005                       |       |

 

----
FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

GERALD ROSS PIZZUTO, Jr.,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

RANDY BLADES, Warden, Idaho

Maximum Security Institution,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 12-99002

D.C. No. 1:05-cv-00516-BLW

District of Idaho, Boise

ORDER

Before: FISHER, GOULD, and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

This case is RESUBMITTED as of the date of this order. 

In light of the Supreme Court’s opinion in Hall v. Florida, 134 S. Ct. 1986

(2014), the opinion filed on September 9, 2013 and reported at Pizzuto v. Blades,

729 F.3d 1211 (9th Cir. 2013), is WITHDRAWN.

The briefing schedule set in our orders of November 4, 2013 and June 10,

2014 is VACATED. 

Petitioner-Appellant’s Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En

Banc is DENIED as moot. 

FILED

JUL 15 2014

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
We VACATE the order of the district court and REMAND the case to the

district court for further proceedings consistent with Hall.

2
COUNSEL

Heather Williams, Federal Defender; Joseph Schlesinger, Assistant Federal

Defender; Joan M. Fisher (argued), Assistant Federal Defender, Federal Defender

for the Eastern District of California, Sacramento, California, for PetitionerAppellant.

Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General of Idaho, Paul R. Panther, Deputy

Attorney General, and L. LaMont Anderson (argued), Deputy Attorney General,

Boise, Idaho, for Respondent-Appellee.

3
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 Nos. 33-89724, 333-03234, 333-57299 and 333-25809) pertaining to the 
1989 Stock Option Plan, 1993 Employee Stock Purchase Plan, 1993 Directors' 
Stock Option Plan, and 1995 Stock Option Plan of Quality Semiconductor, Inc., 
and in the Registration Statement (Amendment No. 1 to Form S-3 No. 333-30189) 
of Quality Semiconductor, Inc. and in the related Prospectus of our report 
dated October 28, 1998 with respect to the consolidated financial statements 
and schedule of Quality Semiconductor, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 
10-K) for the year ended September 28, 1998.


                                                           /s/ ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Jose, California
December 4, 1998
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430

AN ACT

To provide for a temporary increase in the public

debt limit.
103D CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1430

AN ACT

To provide for a temporary increase in the public debt limit.

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

3 SECTION 1. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN PUBLIC DEBT LIMIT.

4 During the period beginning on the date of the enact5 ment of this Act and ending on September 30, 1993, the

6 public debt limit set forth in subsection (b) of section 3101

7 of title 31, United States Code, shall be temporarily in8 creased to $4,370,000,000,000.

Passed the House of Representatives April 2 (legislative day, April 1), 1993.

Attest:

Clerk.
#### MURRAY v. STATE.

No. 20655.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Dec. 6, 1939.

W. R! Blain, of Beaumont, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is possessing whisky in a container to which no tax stamp showing the payment of the tax due the State of Texas was affixed; the punishment, a fine of $100.

G. S. Lowe, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that on the 10th of April, 1939, he and A. C. McDonald, who was employed by the Federal Alcoholic Taxing Unit, went to a house at No. 727 Forsythe Street in the City of Beaumont, and instituted a search for intoxicating liquor. The witness entered the house through the front door while Mr. McDonald went around the building to the rear thereof. Appellant and five or six other negroes were in the kitchen. There were approximately ten rooms in the building, which appeared to be occupied by roomers. As Mr. Lowe entered the kitchen he stated to the negroes present that he had a warrant to search the house. Appellant replied, “All right; go ahead and search.” He found no whisky in the house -but there were several whisky glasses and some empty whisky bottles. All of these bottles bore the proper revenue stamps. The witness testified further that he did not know who was in charge of the building, but assumed that in view of appellant’s statement to him that she controlled it.

Mr. McDonald testified that while making a search of the back yard he found a glass jug under the back steps of the house, containing bootleg whisky. There was no stamp affixed to the jug showing that the tax due the State of Texas had been paid.

 We are constrained to agree with appellant’s contention that the evidence is insufficient to support the conviction. It is observed that there was no testimony sufficient to show that appellant was in charge of the rooming house. . There were several persons present at the time of the search, who, as far as the record reflects the matter, had the same opportunity to place the whisky under the back steps as did appellant. There is nothing in the record to show that appellant exercised any control over the liquor. While the court charged on circumstantial evidence, we are constrained to. the view that the proof failed. to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except that of appellant’s guilt. From Branch’s Ann.P.C., Section 1877, we take the following: “To sustain a conviction it should appear not only that an offense as charged has been committed, but there should also be proof to a degree of certainty greater than a mere probability or strong suspicion tending to establish that the party charged was the person who committed it or was a participant in its commission. There must be legal and competent evidence pertinently identifying the defendant with the transaction constituting the offense charged against him.” See Gunn v. State, 122 Tex.Cr.R. 422, 56 S.W.2d 189.

The judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.

PER CURIAM..

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.