alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 237 (Friday, December 8, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 76956-76957]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31047]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 117

[CGD07-00-006]
RIN 2115-AE47


Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Longboat Pass and New Pass, 
Longboat Key, FL

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District issued a notice of 
proposed rulemaking on 25 August 2000, to change the regulations 
governing the operation of the State Road 789 drawbridge across 
Longboat Pass, Manatee County, and the New Pass bridge, Sarasota 
County, in Longboat Key, Florida. The comment period expired on October 
24, 2000. The Coast Guard has received several requests for additional 
time to submit comments on the proposed rule. As a result, the Coast 
Guard is reopening the comment period for an additional 60 days.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 6, 2001.

ADDRESSES: You may mail comments and related material to Commander 
(obr), Seventh Coast Guard District, 909 SE 1st Avenue, Miami, Florida 
33131-3050, or deliver them to room 406 at the above address between 
7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. 
The Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District maintains the public docket 
for this rulemaking. Comments and material received from the public, as 
well as documents indicated in this preamble as being available in the 
docket, will become part of this docket and will be available for 
inspection or copying at Commander (obr), Seventh Coast Guard District 
909, SE 1st Avenue, room 406, Miami, FL 33131, between 8 a.m. and 4 
p.m. Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Barry Dragon, Project Officer, 
Seventh Coast Guard District, at (305) 415-6743.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 25, 2000, the Coast Guard 
published a notice of proposed rulemaking (65 FR 51787). The NPRM 
proposed to change the regulations governing the operation of the State 
Road 789 drawbridge across Longboat Pass, Manatee County, and the New 
Pass bridge, Sarasota County, in Longboat Key, Florida. The comment

[[Page 76957]]

period ended on October 24, 2000. The Coast Guard has received requests 
from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Manatee County, the town of 
Longboat Key, and the city of Sarasota for additional time to comment 
on this proposed rule. The Coast Guard believes additional time to 
comment on this notice of proposed rulemaking would be beneficial. 
Therefore, the Coast Guard is reopening the comment period for 60 days. 
All comments must be received by February 6, 2001.

    Dated: November 27, 2000.
T.W. Allen,
U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard District.
[FR Doc. 00-31047 Filed 12-7-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-15-P
EXHIBIT 32.2



           CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING AND FINANCIAL OFFICER
                               REGAN HOLDING CORP.
                 FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2004
                 PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED
            PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         I am the Principal  Accounting  and Financial  Officer of Regan Holding
Corp.,  a  California   corporation  (the  "Company").   I  am  delivering  this
certificate in connection with the Company's  annual report on Form 10-K for the
year ended December 31, 2004 ("Form 10-K").

         Pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, I hereby  certify  that,  to the best of my
knowledge,  the Form 10-K fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a)
or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information
contained  in the Form 10-K  fairly  presents,  in all  material  respects,  the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date: March 31, 2005
                           /s/ R. Preston Pitts
                           ------------------------------------------
                           R. Preston Pitts
                           Principal Accounting and 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 Regan  Holding
Corp.  and  will be  retained  by  Regan  Holding  Corp.  and  furnished  to the
Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Amendment dated March 10, 2005



 Exhibit 10.a. 
  
 Amendment 
  
 This is an amendment (“Amendment”) to the Release and Waiver of Claims and Non-Competition Agreement (“Agreement”) made December 20,
2004 by and between CDI Corporation (“the Company”) and Jay G. Stuart (“Employee”). This Amendment is entered into as of March 10, 2005. 
  
 The Agreement is hereby amended as follows: 
  

	 	1.	Section 1(a) is deleted and replaced with the following: 

  
 “Pay Employee bi-weekly severance payments of $11,923.08 from the Termination Date until the earlier of the date on which Employee begins new
full-time employment or February 15, 2006. If Employee has not begun full-time employment as of February 15, 2006, the Company will make an additional lump sum payment to Employee prior to March 14, 2006. The amount of this lump sum payment will be
the difference between $310,000 and the total of all bi-weekly payments made under this section. If Employee begins full-time employment after this lump sum payment has been made but before the expiration of one year after the Termination Date
(“the Anniversary Date”), he will repay to the Company the amount of $5,961,54 times the number of weeks between the start of his new employment and the Anniversary Date. 
  
 All other provisions of the Agreement remain unchanged. 
  

					
	             3-10-05

	 	 /s/ Jay G. Stuart


	              Date	 	Jay G. Stuart
		
	 	 	CDI Corporation
			
	             3/10/05

	 	By:	 	 /s/ Roger H. Ballou


	              Date	 	 	 	Roger H. Ballou
	 	 	 	 	President and CEO
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

GERARDO LUJAN,

Appellant,

v.

ALORICA, INDIVIDUALLY AND

D/B/A ALORICA, INC.,

Appellee. §

§

§

§

§

§ No. 08

- 12

- 00286

- CV

Appeal from the

205 th District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 2012

- DCV

- 03771)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was error in the

judgment. We therefore reverse the judgment of the court below and remand the cause for

further proceedings, in accordance with this Court’s opinion. We further order that Appellant

recover from Appellee all costs of this appeal, for which let execution issue. This decision shall

be certified below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2014.

YVONNE T. RODRIGUEZ, Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rivera, and Rodriguez, JJ.

Rivera, J., not participating
# Uradni list C 39A/7. f

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 39A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 607. februar 2017 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 39A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 607. februar 2017

---

| Obvestilo št. | Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Evropska komisija |
| 2017/C 39 A/01 | Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte – Razpis za prijavo interesa za imenovanje predsednika Odbora za pritožbe (COM/2017/20018) | 1 |

Obvestilo št.

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska komisija

2017/C 39 A/01

Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte – Razpis za prijavo interesa za imenovanje predsednika Odbora za pritožbe (COM/2017/20018)

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Evropska komisija

| 7.2.2017 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 39/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.2.2017

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 39/1

---

URAD SKUPNOSTI ZA RASTLINSKE SORTE

Razpis za prijavo interesa za imenovanje predsednika Odbora za pritožbe

(COM/2017/20018)

(2017/C 039 A/01)

Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte objavlja prosto delovno mesto predsednika Odbora za pritožbe.

Kandidati morajo biti državljani ene od držav članic Evropske unije.

Svet imenuje predsednika Odbora s seznama kandidatov, ki ga predlaga Komisija po pridobitvi mnenja Upravnega sveta Urada. Za informacije o plačilu se lahko obrnete na tajništvo Odbora za pritožbe (Community Plant Variety Office, 3, boulevard Maréchal-Foch, BP 10121, 49101 Angers Cedex 02, Francija). Urad Skupnosti za rastlinske sorte in Komisija izvajata politiko enakih možnosti.

Celotno besedilo razpisa za prijavo interesa in povezava na spletni prijavni obrazec sta na voljo na naslednjem naslovu: https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/human-resources/seniormanagementvacancies/.

Rok za prejem prijav je 8. marec 2017 (natančnejše informacije v navodilih za prijavo).

---
#### Ex parte Roosevelt PATTERSON.

No. 20713.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Grady Sturgeon, of Paris, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The question presented by this record is identical with that presented by the case of Ex parte Gussie Ferguson, Tex.Cr.App., 132 S.W.2d 408, this day decided by us. For the reasons assigned by the Court in that opinion, the relator is ordered discharged.

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.
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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-40534

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

RANDALL LEE THOMPSON

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Texas

USDC No. 6:06-CR-2-ALL

Before JONES, Chief Judge, and JOLLY and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Randall Lee Thompson appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for

possession and distribution of pseudoephedrine. Thompson argues that the

district court erred by denying him a downward departure under U.S.

Sentencing Guidelines Manual (U.S.S.G.) § 5K2.12 or U.S.S.G. § 5K2.13 based

on diminished capacity or mental duress. 

Thompson does not argue and the record does not indicate that the district

court believed that it was without authority to depart from the Guidelines.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

April 30, 2009

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
No. 08-40534

2

Because the district court did not misapprehend its authority, we lack

jurisdiction to review the court’s denial of a downward departure. See United

States v. Sam, 467 F.3d 857, 861 (5th Cir. 2006); United States v. Buck, 324 F.3d

786, 797-98 (5th Cir. 2003).

DISMISSED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from Swift Energy
Operating  Partners  1995-B,  Ltd.'s  balance  sheet and statement of operations
contained  in its Form 10-Q for the  quarter  ended  September  30,  1997 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                         1,837,879
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  46,757
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               1,909,550
<PP&E>                                         645,383
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (99,440)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 2,455,493
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          14,988
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       0
<OTHER-SE>                                     2,440,505
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   2,455,493
<SALES>                                        143,331
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               223,725
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  99,939<F1>
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                97,873
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            97,873
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   97,873
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0
<FN>
<F1>Includes  lease  operating  expenses,  production  taxes  and  depreciation,
depletion and  amortization  expense.  Excludes general and  administrative  and
interest expense.
</FN>
        


</TABLE>
#### PHARISS v. STATE.

No. 20690.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 25, 1939.

Adkins & Adkins, of Brady, for appellant.

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

CHRISTIAN, Judge.

The offense is selling whisky in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.

J. T. Prewitt, an inspector of the Texas Liquor Control Board, testified that on the 31st of July, 1938, he drove to a filling station in the Town of Brady and purchased a pint of whisky from appellant. The proof on the part of the state was to the further effect that McCulloch County was a dry area. The testimony of appellant’s witnesses raised the issue of alibi.

No bills of exception are brought forward and no objections were leveled at the charge of the court.

The evidence is deemed sufficient to support the conviction.

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.
#### In the Matter of United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company, Respondent, v Carol A. Mitchell, Appellant.

Order unanimously reversed on the law without costs and motion denied, in accordance with the following memorandum: Respondent was injured when a vehicle operated by Diann Williams left the roadway and rolled over several times. Respondent settled her action for damages against Williams for $10,000, the personal injury limits of Williams’ policy. Respondent submitted a claim for underinsurance benefits provided by the underinsurance endorsement of her automobile insurance policy issued by petitioner, United States Fidelity and Guaranty Company (USF&Gj. After USF&G denied coverage and respondent insured filed a de*942mand for arbitration, USF&G commenced this proceeding for a stay of arbitration upon the ground that, in executing a general release in favor of the tort-feasor, respondent failed to protect and preserve USF&G’s subrogation rights to proceed against the tort-feasor.

The parties agreed to submit to arbitration all disputes regarding whether the insured "is legally entitled to recover damages” under the endorsement. Such language submits to arbitration the issues of fault and damages, but it does not include the issue of compliance with a condition precedent to coverage *(see, Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co.],*11 NY2d 310, 314). Thus, Supreme Court correctly determined that the issue whether respondent’s settlement prejudiced USF&G’s subrogation rights was a matter for the court, not the arbitrators, to decide *(see, Matter of Rosenbaum [American Sur. Co.] supra; Matter of Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. [Bruton]*45 NY2d 871, *revg*58 AD2d 551; *Matter of CNA Ins. Co. v McNamara,*149 AD2d 590; *cf., Matter of General Acc. Ins. Co. [Ramee]*157 AD2d 877). The court erred, however, in concluding that respondent’s execution of a general release prejudiced her insurer’s subrogation rights. The release expressly reserved "any and all rights under the underinsured coverage portion” of the policy issued by USF&G. Assuming, arguendo, that this language did not amount to an express reservation of USF&G’s subrogation rights, execution of the release does not preclude the insurer from enforcing its right of subrogation against the wrongdoer because the third-party tort-feasor knew, at the time of the release, of those rights *(see, Hamilton Fire Ins. Co. v Greger,*246 NY 162, 167-168; *Ocean Acc. & Guar. Corp. v Hooker Electrochemical Co.,*240 NY 37, 50-51; *Silinsky v State-Wide Ins. Co.,*30 AD2d 1, 3; *Hartford Ins. Group v Posen,*134 Misc 2d 334, 336). Accordingly, the application for a stay of arbitration should have been denied, and the parties should have been directed to proceed to arbitration in accord with the procedure set forth in the underinsurance endorsement. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—arbitration.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Pine, Balio and Lawton, JJ.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan



### October 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor, Chief Justice


### 129533 Michael F. Cavanagh Elizabeth A. Weaver Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan 

### PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, Justices



### v SC: 129533 COA: 260150 Oakland CC: 1975-024828-FC PAULA MAXINE CAMPBELL, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the August 16, 2005 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).

s1023 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

October 31, 2006

Clerk
Figure2.PhiladelphiaSitesand2007-2009DVs&DataCaptureSiteASiteB.DV.DV20-quarterlook(2005-Qi-2009-Q4)DVSite—DVSite—Areastatusstatus.A.B.npairsQlnpairsQ2npairsQ3npairsQ4coSiteASiteB—

.1]Philadelpi420290100‘420290100PhiIadelpI420290100‘421010136PhiladelpF’420290100‘340070003PhiIadeIp’420290100’l00031003PhiIadeIp’420290100’l00031012‘420290100240150003PhiIadeIp420290100‘100031007PhiIadeIpI420290100‘340071007PhiIadeIp’420290100‘100032004PhiIadeIpI’420290100‘42101002.PhiIadeIpI’420290100‘42101000PhiIadeIp’420290100’4210100413.9inc-a13.9inc-a147174193197113.9inc-a13.3inc-a415047570.92040313.9inc-a13.3inc-a648292850.89607413.9inc-a12.2A771131061190.89328413.9inc-a12.2A811191201160.88754513.9inc-a11.1A941111231260.87566913.9inc-a11.3A751101221260.87471813.9inc-a11.7A911121191300.86891613.9inc-a13A1351641811850.855109PhiIadeIpt”420290100’34015Uuu‘42O290100PhiIadeIp420290100‘42101005r421010136Philadelpl’420290100‘42101005W’340070003Philadelpl’420290100‘4204500010OO31O03Philadelpl’4202901001i’i00031012Philadelp[’420290100‘4201700124O150003100031007fr‘Aflfl71SiteB2007Qi2007Q22007Q32007Q487%83%83%71%78%89%88%79%79%96%90%97%84%77%93%100%87%100%100%100%100%87%97%97%97%100%7O/Q7OLcIAOLQflO/.. IQuarterlyDataCapture,2007-20092008Qi2008Q22008Q32008Q42009QI2009Q22009Q32009Q483%94%90%83%89%99%92%84%78%77%58%97%90%80%87%77%80%90%81%97%100%77%93%94%97%90%94%93%97%97%100%97%87%81%77%100%90%87%63%87%87%94%OflOLQflOLflO/flflO/O70LlflflO/.Q2OLQ70/•Site421010136hasthehighestcorrelationwithSiteAandhassufficientpaireddatatoestablishagoodrelationshipBUTitdoesnothavedataavailablein2008-QItoproduceSiteAestimatesforthatquarter.•Site340070003hasthenexthighestcorrelationwithSiteAandhassufficientpaireddatatoestablishagoodrelationshipandalsohassufficientdataintheSiteAdeficientquarterstoproduceestimates...butitisn’tagoodcandidateSiteBperRegion3.[OAQPSrantheprotocolusingthissiteastheTypeBandtheareaPASSED.]•Site100031003hasthenexthighestcorrelationwithSiteAandhassufficientpaireddatatoestablishagoodrelationshipBUTitdoesnothavedataavailablein2008-QItoproduceSiteAestimatesforthatquarter.•Site100031012hasthenexthighestcorrelationwithSiteAandhassufficientpaireddatatoestablishagoodrelationshipandalsohassufficientdataintheSiteAdeficientquarterstoproduceestimates...butisn’tagoodcandidateSiteBperRegion3.[OAQPSrantheprotocolusingthissiteastheTypeBandtheareaPASSED.]•Site240150003hasthenexthighestcorrelationwithSiteAandhassufficientpaireddatatoestablishagoodrelationshipandalsohassufficientdataintheSiteAdeficientquarterstoproduceestimates...anditisagoodcandidateSiteBperRegion3.ThissiteisusedastheSiteB.
FINE HOST CORPORATION
                                          Computation of Per Share Earnings

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>



                                                            Three Months Ended                       Nine Months Ended        
                                                     September 24,       September 25,        September 24,     September 25,
                                                              1997                1996             1997               1996        

<S>                                                     <C>                      <C>                  <C>                 <C>   
Income applicable to Common Stock                      $   2,986          $    1,399           $    5,085           $   1,908
Stock warrant accretion                                       --                  --                   --              (1,300)
                                                       ---------           ---------            ---------           ---------  
Net income available to Common
      Stockholders                                     $   2,986           $   1,399           $    5,085           $     608
                                                       =========           =========           ==========           =========
 
Weighted average number of common shares
      Outstanding                                      8,950,186           6,165,475            8,494,129           3,209,653
Average convertible Preferred shares
      outstanding                                             --                  --                   --             939,197
Assumed conversion of:
      Warrants                                                --                  --                   --             292,502
      Options                                            492,266              83,194              452,547              83,420
      Subordinated Notes                                  17,615                  --               36,404                  --
                                                       ---------           ---------            ---------           ----------
Average number of shares of Common Stock
      outstanding assuming full dilution               9,460,067           6,248,669            8,983,080           4,524,772
                                                       =========           =========            =========           =========

Net income per share assuming full dilution            $     .32           $     .22            $     .57           $     .13
                                                       =========           =========            =========           =========



</TABLE>