alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 75926-75927]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30952]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Notice of Record of Decision (ROD) on the Final Environmental 
Impact Statement (FEIS) on the Disposal and Reuse of the Military Ocean 
Terminal, Bayonne, New Jersey

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DoD.

ACTION: Record of Decision.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of the Army announces its ROD on the FEIS for 
the disposal and reuse of the Military Ocean Terminal, Bayonne (MOTBY). 
The closure of MOTBY was mandated in accordance with the Defense Base 
Closure and Realignment Act of 1990, Public Law 101-510, as amended.
    The ROD allows the Army to initiate action to dispose of the 
excess/surplus property of MOTBY, in accordance with the Bayonne Local 
Redevelopment Authority Amended Reuse Plan.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the ROD may be obtained by contacting Dr. Susan 
Ivester Rees, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Engineer 
District, Mobile (CESAM-PD), 109 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, AL 36602.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Susan Ivester Rees at 334-694-4141 
or by facsimile at 334-690-2727.

[[Page 75927]]


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FEIS analyzed three disposal 
alternatives with respect to the disposal and subsequent reuse of the 
676-acre (440 land acres and 236 submerged land acres) comprising the 
MOTBY: (1) the no action alternative, under which the property would be 
maintained in a caretaker status after closure; (2) the unencumbered 
alternative, under which the Army would transfer the property without 
encumbrances, such as environmental restrictions and easements; and (3) 
the encumbered disposal alternative, under which the Army would 
transfer the property with various environmental restrictions and 
easements, limiting the future use of the property.
    In the ROD, the Army concludes that the FEIS adequately addresses 
the impacts of property disposal and documents its decision to transfer 
the property as encumbered. Possible encumbrances include: Covenants 
and restrictions pertaining to asbestos-containing material, lead-based 
paint, floodplains, future remedial activities after transfer, 
wetlands, easements and rights-of-way.

    Dated: November 29, 2000.
Raymond J. Fatz,
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, (Environment, Safety and 
Occupational Health), OASA (I&E).
[FR Doc. 00-30952 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Exhibit 99.2


                Written Statement of the Chief Executive Officer
                         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, I, the undersigned
Chief Executive Officer of SBM Certificate Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2000 (the "Amended
Report") fully complies with the requirements of Section 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in the Amended Report fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Company.


/s/ Eric M. Westbury
---------------------
    Eric M. Westbury
    President


Date:  October 29, 2002
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 23.3



                  CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


The Board of Directors
Ross Systems Inc,

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements 
(File Nos. 33-42036, 33-48226, 33-56584, 33-72168, 33-89128, 333-36745 and 
333-44665) and Forms S-8 and the registration statements (File Nos. 33-89504, 
333-19619, 333-06053, 333-44363 and 333-47877) on Form S-3 of Ross Systems' 
Inc. (the "Company") of our report dated September 26, 1996 relating to the 
combined balance sheets of Ross Systems (UK) Limited, Ross Systems France 
SA., Ross Systems Deutschland GmbH, Ross Systems Europe NV., and Ross Systems 
Netherlands BV as of June 30, 1996 and the related combined statements of 
operations and stockholder's equity for the year then ended and the related 
schedule, which report appears in the June 30, 1998 annual report on Form 
10-K of the Company.

Our report dated September 26, 1996 contains an explanatory paragraph that 
states that the Company declined to present a statement of cash flows for the 
year ended June 30, 1996. Presentation of such statement summarising the 
Company's operating, investing and financing activities is required by 
generally accepted accounting principles.



/s/ KPMG

KPMG
Chartered Accountants
Registered Auditors
Bristol, United Kingdom
September 28, 1998
[J-72B-2014] [MO: Saylor, C.J.]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Appellant**

**v.**

**JAMES JOHN HVIZDA,**

**Appellee :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 6 MAP 2014** 

**Appeal from the order of the Superior Court at No. 2695 EDA 2012 dated June 25, 2013**  **which vacated and remanded the judgment of sentence of the Chester County Court of**  **Common Pleas, Criminal Division, at No. CP-15-CR-0001350-2012 dated August**  **27, 2012.**

**ARGUED: September 10, 2014**

CONCURRING OPINION

MR. JUSTICE STEVENS DECIDED: June 15, 2015

**I join the majority.**

**Similar to the companion case of Commonwealth v. Carr asquillo, ___ Pa. ___, ___** 

**A.3d ___ (2015), I write separately to emphasize my d isapproval with the Superior Court’s** 

**bright-line rule that prohibited, as a matter of law , trial courts from assessing the credibility** 

**of an “assertion of innocence” made in the context of a presentence motion to withdraw a** 

**guilty plea. This per se approach, which was based upon the utterance of “magic** 

**words,” undermined the trial court’s role as a finder o f fact and removed necessary** 

**discretion from the court. I agree with the majority that such an approach was** 

**unsatisfactory. Trial courts must be permitted to evalu ate the credibility of an accused’s** 

**assertion of innocence, including the evidence of guilt, of delay, and of ulterior or illicit** 

**motive in ruling upon an accused’s presentence motion to withdraw a guilty plea.**
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v William Vanderhall, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant *656from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau Count (Harrington, J.), rendered October 9, 1985, convicting him of grand larceny in the third degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

The defendant contends that he was denied a fair trial by the court’s *Sandoval*ruling which permitted questioning about several prior larceny convictions and a conviction for attempted criminal possession of stolen property, at the defendant’s trial for grand larceny. Initially we note that there is no automatic bar to questioning a defendant about prior convictions simply because they are similar to the crime charged *(see, People v Alexander,*154 AD2d 607). Crimes involving theft are highly probative as to the defendant’s willingness to place his self-interest ahead of that of society *(see, People v Torres,*110 AD2d 794, 795). Since these prior convictions related directly to the defendant’s honesty and integrity, the trial court properly exercised its discretion in allowing them to be used for impeachment purposes.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution *(see, People v Contes,*60 NY2d 620), we find that it was legally sufficient to establish the defendant’s guilt. The proof adduced at trial revealed that the defendant concealed a video camera under his coat and walked out of the Abraham & Strauss Department Store without paying for it. The value of the video camera was established by two store security personnel, who testified to the value of the camera as reflected on the price tag *(see, People v Irrizari,*5 NY2d 142; *People v Basir,*141 AD2d 745).

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contentions and find that they are either without merit or involved harmless error *(see, People v Crimmins,*36 NY2d 230). Eiber, J. P., Sullivan, Balletta and O’Brien, JJ., concur.
I, Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

October 29, 2004
(Date)

Barbara A. Manzolillo, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
(Signature)

I, A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman, certify this
quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Medical Information Technology, Inc. for the
period ended September 30, 2004, fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information
contained in this report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

October 29, 2004
(Date)

A. Neil Pappalardo, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Signature)
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1017 Referred in Senate (RFS)]

111th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 1017

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 25, 2010

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
   To amend the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care Programs 
 Enhancement Act of 2001 and title 38, United States Code, to require 
  the provision of chiropractic care and services to veterans at all 
Department of Veterans Affairs medical centers and to expand access to 
                        such care and services.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Chiropractic Care Available to All 
Veterans Act''.

SEC. 2. PROGRAM FOR PROVISION OF CHIROPRACTIC CARE AND SERVICES TO 
              VETERANS.

    Section 204(c) of the Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 
Programs Enhancement Act of 2001 (38 U.S.C. 1710 note) is amended--
            (1) by inserting ``(1)'' before ``The program''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(2) The program shall be carried out at not fewer than 75 medical 
centers by not later than December 31, 2011, and at all medical centers 
by not later than December 31, 2013.''.

SEC. 3. EXPANDED CHIROPRACTOR SERVICES AVAILABLE TO VETERANS.

    (a) Medical Services.--Paragraph (6) of section 1701 of title 38, 
United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new 
subparagraph:
            ``(H) Chiropractic services.''.
    (b) Rehabilitative Services.--Paragraph (8) of such section is 
amended by inserting ``chiropractic,'' after ``counseling,''.
    (c) Preventive Health Services.--Paragraph (9) of such section is 
amended--
            (1) by redesignating subparagraphs (F) through (K) as 
        subparagraphs (G) through (L), respectively; and
            (2) by inserting after subparagraph (E) the following new 
        subparagraph (F):
            ``(F) periodic and preventative chiropractic examinations 
        and services;''.

            Passed the House of Representatives May 24, 2010.

            Attest:

                                            LORRAINE C. MILLER,

                                                                 Clerk.
```
**MEMORANDUM TO RECORD** 

**SUBJECT:** Meeting with Robert Weaver on P roposed Revisions to the Water Quality

Standards Regulation
. **DATE :**  Wednesday , August 11, 2010 **T IME**  **:** 11:30 AM

– 12:00 PM **Participants:**

 EPA HQ: Shari Barash, Manjali Vlcan, Christina Chris tensen, Heidi Karp, Jim Curtin  Robert Weaver , Kelly & Weaver **Summary of d iscussion points**  **from Bob Weaver :**  General:  Supports moving forward with the proposed rule
. Antidegradation:  Suggests EPA survey state antidegradation implementation procedures prior to proposal. Administrator’s determination:  Suggests EPA require , in regulation, that the Administrator explain/justify the reason behind a determination. U ses:  Suggests EPA should state the reason/authority behind the rebuttable presumption concept.  S uggests EPA should state the authority behind highest attainable use concept.  Suggests EPA clarify

that that uses/criteria are based on magnitude, duration, frequency , and that uses may

have a temporal and/or spatial component. Variances:  Suggests EPA sur

vey states on how variances have been applied and how states/tribes include variance in their regulations. Triennial reviews:  Favors proposal that states and tribes periodicall y consider whether criteria are still protective of designated uses. Reflect c ourt decisions:  Supports discussion of compliance schedules in regulatory revision.  Does not think consent decrees should be used.  Indicated that long
- term compliance schedules are needed.2

 Recommends 303(e)(3)(f) be recognized as a source of authority in this rulemaking.
EXHIBIT 10(y)(iv)

                       DIRECTOR COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

Each non-employee director of the Company receives an annual retainer of $10,000
plus a fee of $1,000 plus expenses for each meeting, excluding teleconference
meetings, of the Board of Directors and, if a member of a Committee, each
Committee meeting not held on the same day that a meeting of the Board of
Directors or another Committee of the Board is held, that he attends. In
addition, provided he is serving as a director of the Company on June 30th of
the applicable year, each non-employee director is granted options under the
Company's stock option plans to purchase 5,000 shares of Common Stock at an
exercise price equal to the closing sale price of the Company's Common Stock on
the American Stock Exchange on such June 30th. The term of each option is ten
years from the date of grant. The options vest in four equal installments over
the first four years of their term.
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 126 Introduced in House (IH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 126

 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at 
birth, merely by virtue of birth in the United States, to persons with 
                   citizen or legal resident mothers.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 6, 2009

 Mr. Gallegly introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to limit citizenship at 
birth, merely by virtue of birth in the United States, to persons with 
                   citizen or legal resident mothers.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITING CITIZENSHIP AT BIRTH, MERELY BY VIRTUE OF BIRTH IN 
              THE UNITED STATES, TO PERSONS WITH LEGAL RESIDENT 
              MOTHERS.

    (a) In General.--Section 301(a) of the Immigration and Nationality 
Act (8 U.S.C. 1401(a)) is amended by inserting before the semicolon the 
following: ``, of a mother who is a citizen or legal resident of the 
United States''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to persons born after the date of ratification of an article of 
amendment to the Constitution of the United States that repeals the 
first sentence of section 1 of the fourteenth article of amendment to 
the Constitution of the United States.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0000870499
<NAME>                 PUBLIC STORAGE PROPERTIES XV, INC.        
<MULTIPLIER>                                                        1
<CURRENCY>                                                         US
       
<S>                                                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                                  12-Mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                         Dec-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                            Jan-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                              Dec-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                     1
<CASH>                                                      1,755,000
<SECURITIES>                                                  713,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                                 252,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                            2,720,000
<PP&E>                                                     49,129,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                           (12,833,000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                             39,016,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                       1,418,000
<BONDS>                                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                               0
<PREFERRED>                                                         0
<COMMON>                                                       30,000
<OTHER-SE>                                                 37,568,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                               39,016,000
<SALES>                                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                            8,475,000
<CGS>                                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                               4,353,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                              200,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                             16,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                             3,906,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                         3,906,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                     0
<CHANGES>                                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                                3,906,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                                    1.69
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                    1.29
        

</TABLE>
COURT OF APPEALS

SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

FORT WORTH

NO. 02-16-00438-CR

Mark Mercer

v.

The State of Texas

§

§

§

§

§

From the 396th District Court

of Tarrant County (1402716D)

October 26, 2017

Opinion by Justice Gabriel

(nfp)

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that 

there was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of 

the trial court is affirmed.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Lee Gabriel

 Justice Lee Gabriel
Picture descriptions of Ted Bell’s PowerPoint presentation made at the July 10, 2013 PVAG 

NPRM Hearing held by the US Access Board.

Slide 1 – Picture of catamaran ferry tied up to gangplank system.

Slide 2 – No picture.

Slide 3 – Satellite picture of San Francisco Bay showing the three Golden Gate Ferry terminals 

and the two ferry routes. One route from San Francisco Terminal to Sausalito Terminal, and the 

other from San Francisco Terminal to Larkspur Terminal

Slide 4 – Three pictures. Picture one shows a gangplank system with two gangplanks pointing 

to an open berth. Picture two shows a telescoping gangplank projecting into the side of a 

vessel. Picture three shows a telescoping gangplank projecting into the side of a ferry with 

people on the gangplank moving toward the ferry. Guardrails are shown but no separate 

handrails.

Slide 5 – Two pictures of gangplanks, that appear to be crew positioned, connected to the side 

of two vessels. The gangplanks have fixed handrails. One gangplank has a transition plate with 

fixed handrails, and the other gangplank has a transition plate at one end but no handrails.

Slide 6 – Two pictures of probably same telescoping gangplank with handrail running along 

guard rail but only extending about halfway down the gangplank. Picture one shows looking 

from the pier to the vessel down the gangplank, and picture two shows from the vessel to the 

pier. In both pictures, red circles show where the handrails stop near the middle length of the 

gangplank.

Slides 7 and 8 – No pictures.

Slide 9 – Pictures of two plan views of the gangplank surface with folding handrail (Alternative 

1A and 1B). In one view, the handrail parallels the guardrail. The view shows where the 

handrail is hinged and where the guard rail telescopes. When the handrail is extended, it 

overlaps the transition plate and extends beyond the transition plate into the vessel. In the 

second view, the handrail is folded and blocks the gangplank before one gets to the transition 

plate.

Slide 10 – Two pictures show the degree the folding handrail extends into a vessel with a man 

size figure next to the handrails (Alternative 1A).

Slide 11 – Pictures of three side views of shorter fixed handrail (Alternative 1B). In first view, 

handrail extends to the side of the vessel. In the second view, the handrail extends into the 
vessel, and in the third view, the handrail extends 25 inches plus or minus from the edge of the 

vessel.

Slide 12 – Picture of plan view (Alternative 2) shows overlapping handrails on both sides of the 

gangplank.

Slide 13 – Picture of plan view (Alternative 3) shows continuous telescoping handrails on both 

sides of the gangplank.

Slide 14 – Picture of side view (Alternative 3) showing magnified view of telescoping handrail 

showing the junction of the two rails where it would telescope in relationship to the telescoping 

part of the gangplank.

Slide 15 – No picture.