alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 76216-76217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31111]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1129]


Expansion of Foreign-Trade Zone 3, San Francisco, California

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of June 
18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u),

[[Page 76217]]

the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the San Francisco Port Commission, grantee of Foreign-
Trade Zone 3, submitted an application to the Board for authority to 
expand FTZ 3 to include the jet fuel storage and distribution system at 
the San Francisco International Airport and related facilities (261 
acres) in the San Francisco, California, area, within the San Francisco 
Customs port of entry (FTZ Docket 16-2000; filed April 28, 2000);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (65 FR 30057, May 10, 2000) and the application has been 
processed pursuant to the FTZ Act and the Board's regulations; and
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that the proposal is in the 
public interest;
    Now, Therefore, the Board hereby orders:
    The application to expand FTZ 3 is approved, subject to the Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Sec. 400.28.

    Signed at Washington, DC, this 21st day of November 2000.
Troy H. Cribb,
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, Alternate 
Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
[FR Doc. 00-31111 Filed 12-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.2 CERTIFICATION BY 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 this Amendment No. 2 the Annual Report of Numerex Corp
(the Company) on Form 10-K as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Alan B. Catherall, 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, to
the best of my knowledge, 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 for the dates and periods covered by the Report. This certificate is being made for the exclusive purpose of compliance by
the Chief Financial Officer of the Company with the requirements of Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, and may not be disclosed, distributed or
used by any person or for any reason other than as specifically required by
law. Date:
November 12, 2004
    
    /s/ Alan B. CatherallAlan B. CatherallChief Financial Officer
II 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1974 

To require transparency in the tax code by requiring federally funded tax 

credits to be disclosed in the USASpending.gov website. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 17, 2017 

Mr. FLAKE introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To require transparency in the tax code by requiring federally funded tax credits to be disclosed in the 

USASpending.gov website. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Tax Expenditures Ac5 countability Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. DISCLOSURE OF PUBLIC COMPANIES RECEIVING 

7 TAX CREDITS. 

8 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 6103 of 

9 the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 or any other provision 

10 of law, the Secretary of the Treasury, or the Secretary’s 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1974 IS

1 delegate, shall provide to administrator of the website es2 tablished under the Federal Funding Accountability and 

3 Transparency Act of 2006 (31 U.S.C. 6101 note), for pur4 poses of inclusion on such website, the information de5 scribed in subsection (b) with respect to any taxpayer 

6 (other than an individual) which is allowed a credit against 

7 taxes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for any 

8 taxable year beginning after the date of the enactment of 

9 this Act. 

10 (b) INFORMATION INCLUDED.—The information de11 scribed in this subsection is— 

12 (1) the name of the taxpayer; 

13 (2) the type of the tax credit allowed; and 

14 (3) the amount of the credit. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

January 27, 2009 

d0120 

Order 

 

January 27, 2009 

137599 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 137599 

 COA: 279202 

Wayne CC: 06-003231-01 

THOMAS LEIGH, III, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the September 11, 2008 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### CLARDY v. STATE.

No. 20517.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 7, 1939.

Levie Old, of Brownwood, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

Conviction for a misdemeanor; punishment, a fine of $150.

The transcript fails to disclose a notice of appeal. Under the circumstances, this court is without jurisdiction.

The appeal is dismissed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Gourt of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
#### TEAL v. STATE.*

No. 19858.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

June 8, 1938.

Rehearing Denied Oct. 19, 1938.

*95W. E. Davenport, of San Angelo, for appellant.

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

*

 Rehearing denied 120 S.W.2d 596.

HAWKINS, Judge.

Conviction is for the sale of intoxicating liquor in dry territory, punishment assessed being a fine of $100.00.

The record is before this court without statement of facts or bills of exception. In such condition nothing is presented for review.

The judgment is affirmed.

On Motion for .Rehearing.

GRAVES, Judge.

The original opinion herein is in error wherein it states that appellant’s punishment was assessed at a fine of $100. It should have read that her punishment was assessed at a fine of $100 in each of the three counts in the complaint and information, totaling the sum of $300.

Appellant complains in his motion of the verdict of the jury in that the jury returned a verdict finding the appellant guilty and assessing the fine at $100 in count No. 1, also again a like verdict in count No. 2, and also a like verdict in count No. 3, and the foreman signing his name at the bottom of each verdict, appellant thus contending that such a verdict was.not a general verdict, and that on such grounds alone this cause should be reversed.

 Unquestionably in misdemeanor “cases separate offenses may be charged in separate counts and the whole matter disposed of in one trial and convictions had in response to the different offenses so charged. And a judgment in such a case is not invalid because it is based on a verdict finding the accused guilty of three separate offenses alleged in different counts of the same indictment.” 12 Tex.Jur. 694. See Blackwell v. State, 92 Tex.Cr.R. 473, 244 S.W. 532; Sanders v. State, 70 Tex.Cr.R. 209, 156 S.W. 927.

This being the law, we are at a loss to see how any other verdict could be properly rendered other than to say that in count No. 1 the defendant was either guilty or not guilty; the same as to count No. 2,’ and also as to count No. 3. The mere fact that the foreman of the jury seems to have signed his name three times on the same piece of paper, and after each finding of the jury, in our opinion, could not operate to vitiate this verdict. 'We think same is a general verdict that disposes of all the issues presented to the jury.

The motion is overruled.
JACK REED , JR., MAYOR , •• .^RJMFNTOF 

:;;^NSP0RtAT10M 

::::KtT OPERATIONS 

m\ m 15 P 3: 23. 

November 7, 2011 

Mr. Dennis DeVany, Chief 

EAS & Domestic Analysis Division 

Office of Aviation 

Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. 

Washington, DC 20590 

RE: Tupelo Regional Airport (TUP) 

Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 

Dear Mr. DeVany: 

We have reviewed EAS proposals submitted under Docket DOT-OST-2009-0305 from 

SeaPort Airlines Inc. and Multi-Aero Inc., dba Air Choice One for Tupelo, Mississippi 

and determined that they do not meet the current regulatory requirements of 19 seat 

aircraft. Furthermore, the level of service will be a great disadvantage to any airline and 

our airport without support from Delta Airlines, through codeshare and joint ticket 

pricing, allowing passengers to easily flow through the national airports system. 

We appreciate the interest of these airlines, but do not endorse or support these 

proposals for subsidized essential air service to the communities of Tupelo, MS. 

We request that hold-in order 2011-9-5 served Septehiber 13^ 2011 that prohibited 

Mesaba & Pinnacle Airlines dba Delta Connection from terminating scheduled airline 

service to Tupelo, Mississippi remain in effect until further notice, or until such time as a 

suitable replacement which satisfies the community's needs can be found. 

We would like to thank you for your cooperation and assistance in this matter. 

Respectfully, 

CITY OF TUPELO 

^ac k Reed Jr. ^ 

Mayor 

71 EAST TROY STREET • POST OFFICE BOX 1485 

TUPELO. MISSISSIPPI 38802-1485 

TELEPHONE 662.841.6509 • FAX 662.840.2074
EXHIBIT 10.1

Summary of Executive Officer Salaries
---------------------------------------

The salaries of the executive officers of International Shipholding
Corporation for 2005 are described below:

Erik F. Johnsen, Chairman of the Board and
 Chief Executive Officer                               $340,000

Niels M. Johnsen, President                            $320,000

Erik L. Johnsen, Executive Vice President              $300,000

Gary L. Ferguson, Vice President and
 Chief Financial Officer                               $173,000
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                          88,485
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,589
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    155,767
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               401,841
<PP&E>                                          27,536
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,614
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 477,557
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          753,434
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,517
<OTHER-SE>                                    (481,311)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   477,557
<SALES>                                        760,454
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               760,454
<CGS>                                          322,104
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,687,390
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                16,472
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,472
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (2,265,512)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (2,265,512)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (2,265,512)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.07)


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-6773

WILBERT ANTHONY NEAL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

STEVEN C. MILLER, Supervising, US Probation

Officer; STEVEN LABIER, Bureau of Prison;

JOSEPH B. STEELMAN, JR., Chief, US Probation

Office,

Defendants - Appellees,

and

JAMES A. BEATY, JR., United States District

Judge,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Charleston. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-134-9-10BG)

Submitted: July 10, 2003 Decided: July 17, 2003

Before WILKINSON, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
2

Wilbert Anthony Neal, Appellant Pro Se. Robert F. Daley, Jr.,

Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).

PER CURIAM:

Wilbert Anthony Neal seeks to appeal the district court’s

order granting Appellees’ motion for partial summary judgment and

removing a federal district court judge from the complaint. This

court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C.

§ 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28

U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial

Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Neal seeks to

appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or

collateral order. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of

jurisdiction. We deny Neal’s motions for appointment of counsel and

for oral argument. We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23



Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm



We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ESB Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 8, 2005, with respect to the
consolidated financial statements of ESB Financial Corporation and subsidiaries, ESB Financial Corporation managements assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over
financial reporting of ESB Financial Corporation, included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of ESB Financial Corporation.



We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form S-8 Nos. 33-43001, 33-49234, 333-27613, 333-31464, 333-31379 and 333-61002 and Form S-3
No. 333-101514) of ESB Financial Corporation of our reports dated March 8, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of ESB Financial Corporation and subsidiaries, ESB Financial Corporation managements assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting of ESB Financial Corporation, included in the 2004 Annual Report to Shareholders of ESB Financial Corporation, which is
incorporated by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) of ESB Financial Corporation.



|                        
|------------------------
|/s/ Ernst & Young LLP   
|Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
|March 11, 2005
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 234 (Tuesday, December 5, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 75977]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-30863]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee; Open Committee 
Meetings

    According to the provisions of section 10 of the Federal Advisory 
Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), notice is hereby given that meetings of 
the Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee will be held on--

Thursday, December 14, 2000
Thursday, December 21, 2000

    The meeting will start at 10:00 a.m. and will be held in Room 
5A06A, Office of Personnel Management Building, 1900 E Street, NW., 
Washington, DC.
    The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee is composed of a 
Chair, five representatives from labor unions holding exclusive 
bargaining rights for Federal blue-collar employees, and five 
representatives from Federal agencies. Entitlement to membership on the 
Committee is provided for in 5 U.S.C. 5347.
    The Committee's primary responsibility is to review the Prevailing 
Rate System and other matters pertinent to establishing prevailing 
rates under subchapter IV, chapter 53, 5 U.S.C., as amended, and from 
time to time advise the Office of Personnel Management.
    This scheduled meeting will start in open session with both labor 
and management representatives attending. During the meeting either the 
labor members or the management members may caucus separately with the 
Chair to devise strategy and formulate positions. Premature disclosure 
of the matters discussed in these caucuses would unacceptably impair 
the ability of the Committee to reach a consensus on the matters being 
considered and would disrupt substantially the disposition of its 
business. Therefore, these caucuses will be closed to the public 
because of a determination made by the Director of the Office of 
Personnel Management under the provisions of section 10(d) of the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463) and 5 U.S.C. 
552b(c)(9)(B). These caucuses may, depending on the issues involved, 
constitute a substantial portion of a meeting.
    Annually, the Chair compiles a report of pay issues discussed and 
concluded recommendations. These reports are available to the public, 
upon written request to the Committee's Secretary.
    The public is invited to submit material in writing to the Chair on 
Federal Wage System pay matters felt to be deserving of the Committee's 
attention. Additional information on this meeting may be obtained by 
contacting the Committee's Secretary, Office of Personnel Management, 
Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee, Room 5538 , 1900 E Street, 
NW., Washington, DC 20415 (202) 606-1500.

    Dated: November 21, 2000.
John F. Leyden,
Chairman, Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 00-30863 Filed 12-4-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-U
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF FLORIDA SECOND DISTRICT ROBERT FREDRICKSON, ) ) Appellant, ) ) v. ) Case No. 2D18-2696 ) STATE OF FLORIDA, ) ) Appellee. ) ___________________________________) Opinion filed November 22, 2019. Appeal pursuant to Fla. R. App. P. 9.141(b)(2) from the Circuit Court for Pasco County; Kimberly Campbell, Judge. Robert Fredrickson, pro se. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Laurie Benoit-Knox, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee.
PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
KELLY, MORRIS, and SMITH, JJ., Concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22 - 0386 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. RYAN MITCHELL TUFF,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including June 7 , 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

May 1 2023

05/01/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0386
#### PHELAN v. STATE.

No. 20829.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Feb. 7, 1940.

M. E. Lawrence, of Eastland, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The offense is burglary. The punishment assessed is confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of 4 years.

Appellant was- charged by indictment with having unlawfully by force entered a house known as the Parks Absorption Pump Room, then and there occupied and controlled by A. A. Harden, with the fraudulent intent to take from said house certain personal property therein located, etc.

When his case was called for trial, appellant waived- a jury in the manner provided by law and entered a plea of guilty. Notwithstanding his plea of guilty, the state offered proof to substantiate the charge in the indictment. After his conviction, appellant filed a motion for a new trial in which he asserted that he was induced to plead guilty by the district attorney, who advised him that if he did plead guilty, he would recommend that his punishment be assessed at confinement in the state penitentiary for a term of two years. That he believed said promise and relied thereon when he entered said plea. This motion was contested by the state. A categorical' denial of the allegations were made by the district attorney. Appellant offered no proof in support of his allegations. Under the circumstances as disclosed by the record, we are unable to say that the trial court-abused his discretion in declining to grant a new trial.

No error of a reversible nature appearing, the judgment is affirmed.

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.
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 Trimol Group, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Executive Officer of the Company hereby certifies, 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 as of and for the
periods covered in the Report. /s/ Yuri
 BenensonYuri
 BenensonChief
 Executive OfficerTRIMOL
 GROUP, INC.August 14,
 2007 24