alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Argued and submitted June 7,

affirmed July 7, 1993

#### SCHROCK FARMS, INC., an Oregon corporation, Vernon Schrock and Dean Schrock, *Respondents, v.*LINN COUNTY, *Respondent, and*OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, *Petitioner.*

(90-061; CA A79572)

855 P2d 648

John T. Bagg, Assistant Attorney General, Salem, argued the cause for petitioner. With him on the brief were Theodore R. Kulongoski, Attorney General, and Virginia L. Linder, Solicitor General, Salem.

*561-aEdward F. Schultz, Albany, argued the cause and filed the brief for respondents Schrock Farms, Inc., Vernon Schrock and Dean Schrock.

No appearance for respondent Linn County.

Before Deits, Presiding Judge, and Riggs and Leeson, Judges.

PER CURIAM

*562PER CURIAM

Petitioner Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) seeks review of LUBA’s decision following our remand in *Schrock Farms, Inc. v. Linn County,*117 Or App 390, 844 P2d 253 (1992). LUBA reversed Linn County’s approval of ODOT’s application to realign a portion of a highway located in an exclusive farm use zone. LUBA held, *inter alia,*that the proposed realignment is contrary to ORS 215.283 and that the county’s Goal 3 exception, unaccompanied by a zone change, did not obviate the need to comply with the statute. We agree with that conclusion.

Affirmed.
<PAGE>
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                       AMERIKING, INC
                     COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                   (DOLLARS IN THOUSANDS)
                                                    Fiscal 1995            Fiscal 1996
                                                --------------------  ----------------------
                                                 W/O PIK   With PIK    W/O PIK     With PIK
                                                Dividends  Dividends  Dividends   Dividends
                                                ---------  ---------  ----------  ----------
<S>                                             <C>        <C>        <C>         <C>
EARNINGS
Income before income taxes and extraordinary      $ 1,727    $ 4,025    ($4,498)    ($4,498)
 item
Interest expense                                    8,323     11,642     11,983      11,629
Amortization of deferred financing costs              567        548        883         548
Portion of rents representative of interest         3,445      4,629      4,370       4,736
 factor
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                  4,350                  4,350
                                                  -------    -------   --------    --------
Total earnings                                    $14,062    $25,204   $ 12,738    $ 16,765
                                                  =======    =======   ========    ========
FIXED CHARGES
Interest expense                                  $ 8,323    $11,652   $ 11,983    $ 11,629
Amortization of deferred financing costs              567        548        883         548
Portion of rents representative of interest         3,445      4,629      4,370       4,736
 factor
Preferred stock PIK dividends                                  4,350                  4,350
                                                  -------    -------   --------    --------
Total fixed charges                               $12,335    $21,179   $ 17,236    $ 21,263
                                                  =======    =======   ========    ========
RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES                  1.14x  1.19x      0.74x       0.79x
                                                  =======  =========  =========   =========
 
INSUFFICIENT EARNINGS TO COVER FIXED                                   $  4,498    $  4,498
 CHARGES                                                               ========    ========
</TABLE>
#### City of Milwaukee, Appellant, vs. Blechinger, Respondent.

*September 14*—

October *11, 1927.*

*Disorderly house: Venue: Evidence: Sufficiency.*

In an action by a city for a penalty for the violation by defendant of a city ordinance prohibiting the keeping of a disorderly house, the evidence, though meager, is *held*sufficient to prove the venue.

Appeal from a judgment of the municipal court of Milwaukee county: George A. Shaughnessy, Judge.

*Reversed.*

This action was brought by the city of *Milwaukee,*a municipal corporation, to collect the penalty or forfeiture due it from the defendant *Joseph Blechinger*for having on the 27th day of June, 1926, violated sec. 1063 of the ordinances of said city, in that the said defendant on that day did keep a disorderly house upon the premises located at number 450 Fourth street in said city.

The defendant was first brought to trial in the district court of Milwaukee county and found guilty of the offense *653charged, whereupon he appealed to the municipal court of Milwaukee county and there was a trial *de novo.*Upon the trial in the municipal court the defendant was found guilty as charged in the complaint. Upon the coming in of the verdict the defendant moved that the court set aside the verdict of the jury for the reason that the venue had not been proven. After argument defendant’s motion was granted and judgment was entered setting aside the verdict of the jury, dismissing the action and discharging the defendant, from which the plaintiff city appeals.

The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of *John M. Niven,*city attorney, and *Andrew W. Brunhart,*assistant city attorney, and for the respondent on that of *Cannon & Waldron*of Milwaukee.

Rosekberry, J.

A witness, Walter Schroeder, police officer of the city of *Milwaukee,*testified that he was such on the 27th day of June, 1926; that he knew the defendant was conducting his business at 450 Fourth street; that he passed the defendant’s place of business and observed the conduct which he claimed amounted to a violation of the ordinance. One Dax, a witness for the plaintiff, testified that he was'a sergeant on the police force; that he met the officer, Schroeder, at the police box at Fifth and Vliet streets and that Schroeder told him that *Blechinger’s*place was going wide open.

The proof in this case is meager, but the situation is ruled by *Kellar v. State,*174 Wis. 67, 182 N. W. 321, and it must be held that the trial court was in error in holding, in view of the finding of the jury, that the venue -was insufficiently proven.

*By the Court.*— The judgment appealed from is reversed, and cause remanded for further proceedings according to law.
# C_2004279EN.01000301.xml

| 16.11.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 279/3 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

16.11.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 279/3

---

Call for applications concerning the appointment of operators charged with providing universal electronic communications service in France

(2004/C 279/03)

The French Ministry of Economy, Finance and Industry hereby announces its intention to proceed with a call for applications concerning the appointment of operators charged with providing the universal electronic communications service in France. This service includes the following three components which are described by article L.35-1 of the French postal and electronic communications code:

| 1. | Connection to the public telephone network and supply of a telephone service to the public |
| --- | --- |

1.

Connection to the public telephone network and supply of a telephone service to the public

| 2. | Telephone information services and directories |
| --- | --- |

2.

Telephone information services and directories

| 3. | Public pay telephones. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Public pay telephones.

Three notices of call for applications will shortly be published in the Journal Officiel de la République Française (Official Bulletin of the French Republic). They will be available for consultation on the website www.telecom.gouv.fr

Journal Officiel de la République Française

---
# Farm Bill Factsheet

## Breadcrumb

-  Home 
-  Resources 
-  Farm Bill Factsheet 

NRCS works with partners to set aside a certain pool of funding for an awarded project. Producers, landowners, and partners then enter into producer contracts and supplemental agreements with NRCS to carry out agreed-to conservation activities.

### What’s New in the 2018 Farm Bill

RCPP is now a standalone program with its own funding˗̶ $300 million annually. NRCS may award up to 15 Alternative Funding Arrangement projects, which are more grant-like and rely more on partner capacity to implement conservation activities. RCPP now has two funding pools˗̶ Critical Conservation Areas and a State/ Multistate pool. RCPP partners must develop and report on environmental outcomes.

RCPP Farm Bill Factsheet(541.86 KB)
# C_2005006EN.01003202.xml

| 8.1.2005 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 6/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.1.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 6/32

---

Removal from the register of Case C-67/03 (1)

1

(2005/C 6/60)

(Language of the case: Italian)

(Language of the case: Italian)

By order of 6 July 2004 the President of the Court of Justice of the European Communities has ordered the removal from the register of Case C-67/03: Commission of the European Communities v Italian Republic.

---

(1)  OJ C 83 of 5.4.2003.

1

---
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                           AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                                   PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

The  undersigned  hereby  certifies,  pursuant to, and as required by, 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that the Quarterly  Report of Edison  Renewables,  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the period  ended  September  30, 2003 fully  complies  with the
requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
as amended,  and that  information  contained in such  Quarterly  Report on Form
10-QSB fairly presents,  in all material respects,  the financial  condition and
results of operations of the Company.


Dated: November 14, 2003                          /s/ Paul Steo
                                                  ------------------------------
                                                  Paul Steo
                                                  Chief Executive Officer and
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
<PAGE>

                                                                      EXHIBIT 11



            AMERICAN TELESOURCE INTERNATIONAL INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES

                        COMPUTATIONS OF LOSS PER SHARE

                                (in thousands)


                                            For the Year Ended
                              -------------------------------------------------
                              July 31, 1997     July 31, 1998     July 31, 1999
                              -------------------------------------------------
COMPUTATION OF BASIC LOSS
  PER SHARE
     Net loss                     ($4,695)           ($5,094)          ($7,591)
                               ==========         ==========        ==========

WEIGHED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
  SHARES COMMON STOCK
  OUTSTANDING                      26,807             41,093            47,467
                               ==========         ==========        ==========

BASIC LOSS PER COMMON SHARE        ($0.18)            ($0.12)           ($0.16)
                               ==========         ==========        ==========

COMPUTATION OF DILUTED LOSS
  PER SHARE

  Net loss                        ($4,695)           ($5,094)          ($7,591)

  Dividends not incurred upon
     assumed conversion of
     convertible preferred
     stock                              0                  0                70

   Interest not incurred
     assumed conversion of
     convertible note                   9                  0                 0
                               ----------         ----------        ----------

  Not loss applicable to
     common stockholders
     used for computation         ($4,686)           ($5,094)          ($7,521)
                               ==========         ==========        ==========

Weighted average number of
  shares of common stock
  outstanding                      26,807             41,093            47,467

Weighted average incremental
  shares outstanding upon
  assumed conversion of
  options and warrants              3,061             10,228             4,272

Weighted average incremental
  shares outstanding upon
  assumed conversion of
  preferred stock                       0                  0               264

Weighted average incremental
  shares outstanding upon assumed
  conversion of convertible note      200                  0                 0
                               ----------         ----------        ----------

WEIGHT AVERAGE COMMON SHARES AND
  COMMON SHAE EQUIVALENTS USED
  FOR COMPUTATION                  30,068             51,321            52,003
                               ==========         ==========        ==========

DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE
  AND COMMON EQUIVALENT            ($0.16)            ($0.10)           ($0.14)
                               ==========         ==========        ==========
HomeNRC LibraryFOIA & Privacy ActRecent FOIA Requests2021

# Recent FOIA Requests - September 2021

This page presents a chronological listing of the subject and reference number of each Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act (FOIA/PA) Request submitted to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) during September 2021. For additional detail, see the Index of Closed FOIA/PA Requests by Subject.

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 9, 2022

Section Navigation

#### Navigation

          - January
          - February
          - March
          - April
          - May
          - June
          - July
          - August
          - September
          - October
          - November
          - December

#### Spotlight

#### Choose a Section

                - The Commission
                - License Renewal Generic Environmental Review
                - Job Openings
                - Palisades Restart
                - Environmental Justice 
                - Pilgrim Water Releases
                - Monticello Tritium Issue
                - International Strategy 2021-2025
                - Tribal Liaison Program
                - MAP-X
                - Transformation at the NRC - Updated
                - OIG Hotline
                - Rulemaking Activity
                - Commission Documents
                - Advanced Reactors
                - Nuclear Security
                - Strategic Plan

Page Last Reviewed/Updated Wednesday, March 9, 2022
#### L. E. Streator Lumber Company, Appellant, vs. Evans, Respondent.

Appeal from a judgment of the circuit court for Monroe county dated August 10, 1926: R. S. Cowie, Judge.

Action on contract. Judgment for defendant, from which plaintiff appeals.

For the appellant: *T. P. Abel*of Sparta, attorney, and *Brown, Somsen & Sawyer*of Winona, Minnesota, of counsel.

For the respondent: *Graves, Masters & Hansen*of Sparta, attorneys, and *Goggins, Brazeau & Graves*of Wisconsin Rapids, of counsel.

*By the Court.*— Judgment affirmed.
Exhibit 99.02


                            CERTIFICATE PURSUANT TO
                      THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934,
                            RULES 13a-14 AND 15d-14
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Paul Steo, Chief Executive Officer/Chief Financial Officer of Lockwave
Technologies, Inc., certify that:

     (1)  I have reviewed the report on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended
          September 30, 2002 of Lockwave Technologies, Inc.;

     (2)  Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any
          untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact
          necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances
          under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to
          the period covered by this quarterly report;

     (3)  Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
          information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all
          material respects the financial condition, results of operations and
          cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in
          this quarterly report;


   Dated:  October 15, 2002


   By: /s/ Paul Steo
           -------------
           Paul Steo
           President
EXHIBIT 32.b



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 BCTC IV Assignor Corp. (the "registrant") on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marc N. Teal, Principal Financial Officer of the registrant, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(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 registrant.



|             |  |                            
|------------ |  | ---------------------------
|Date:        |  |                            
|May 15, 2009 |  | /s/ Marc N. Teal           
|             |  |                            
|             |  | Marc N. Teal               
|             |  | Principal 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 registrant and will be retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Jacob Inbar, ChiefExecutive Officer of AML Communications Inc., (the “Company”), certify that:

1.             Ihave reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of AML Communications, Inc.;

2.             Basedon my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statementsmade, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.             Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)          Designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this report is being prepared;

(b)         Evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

(c)        Disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5.             Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

(a)        Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

(b)       Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

Date: August 14, 2006
| /s/ Jacob Inbar         |   |   |   |   |
|-------------------------|--------|--------|--------|--------|
| By: Jacob Inbar         |
| Chief Executive  Office |

 

----