alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 34 (Friday, February 20, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 9280]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03508]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[14XF5020LA FF01R05000 FVRS 8451 01 0000 0; IDI-29793]


Public Land Order No. 7830; Extension of Public Land Order No. 
7130; Idaho

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Public land order.

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

SUMMARY: This order extends Public Land Order No. 7130 for an 
additional 20-year period. This extension is necessary to continue to 
protect and reserve the lands for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 
Grays Lake Refuge Headquarters in Bonneville County, Idaho, which would 
otherwise expire on March 30, 2015.

DATES: Effective Date: March 31, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeff Cartwright, BLM Idaho State 
Office, 208-962-3680. Persons who use a telecommunications device for 
the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 
1-800-877-8339 to reach the Bureau of Land Management contact. The FIRS 
is available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, to leave a message or 
question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during 
normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose for which the withdrawal was 
first made requires this extension in order to continue to protect and 
reserve the lands for use as an administrative site--the U.S. Fish and 
Wildlife Service Grays Lake Refuge Headquarters. The withdrawal 
extended by this order will expire on March 30, 2035, unless, as a 
result of a review conducted prior to the expiration date pursuant to 
Section 204(f) of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
(43 U.S.C. 1714 (f)), the Secretary determines that the withdrawal 
shall be further extended.

Order

    By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior 
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 
(43 U.S.C. 1714), it is ordered as follows:
    Public Land Order No. 7130 (60 FR 16585 (1995)), which transferred 
jurisdiction of 37.5 acres of public land withdrawn from settlement, 
sale, location or entry under the public land laws, including the 
United States mining laws, but not the mineral leasing laws, from the 
U.S. Forest Service to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife in order to protect 
the Grays Lake Refuge Headquarters, is hereby extended until March 30, 
2035.

    Dated: February 7, 2015.
Janice M. Schneider,
Assistant Secretary--Land and Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 2015-03508 Filed 2-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
Order entered April 7 , 2016

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 01488
- CV THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellant

V. TABATHA S. NEALY, Appellee On Appeal from the 366th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 366
- 02723
- 2015



### O RDER
We GRANT appellee’s April 4, 2016 unopposed second motion for an extension of time to file a brief. Appellee shall file a brief by May 4, 2016 . No further extension of time will be granted absent extraordinary circumstanc es.

/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 05-1444
MICHAEL P. NASIATKA, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GORDON R. ENGLAND, Secretary, Department of the Navy, Defendant - Appellee, and HANSFORD T. JOHNSON, Acting Secretary of the Navy; RICHARD J. NAUGHTON, Vice Admiral, Defendants. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofMaryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. (CA03-900-RDB) Submitted: March 29, 2006 Decided: April 10, 2006 Before WILKINSON, WILLIAMS, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael P. Nasiatka, Appellant Pro Se. Tarra Deshields Minnis, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellee.- 2 - Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).- 3 - PER CURIAM: Michael P. Nasiatka appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of his employer in this employment discrimination action. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Nasiatka v. England , No. CA-03- 900-RDB (D. Md. Oct. 9, 2003; Mar. 10, 2005). 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.

AFFIRMED
**CERTIFICATION
OF CFO PURSUANT TO THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**
 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
 OF
THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 
 I,
Dione Bitzer, Chief Financial Officer of Almaden Minerals Ltd. (the “Company”)
do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my
knowledge:
 
 1.
    This
      Annual Report on Form 20-F of the Company for the period ended December
      31, 2004, as filed withthe
      Securities and Exchange Commission (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.
 
 Date: March
28, 2005
 
 
 Signed: /s/Dione
Bitzer
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-18-00614-CV

Dennis BUXTON and Son Chu Buxton,

Appellants

v.

UNITED SERVICES AUTOMOBILE ASSOCIATION and Reed Whiting,

Appellees

From the 224th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2016-CI-20679

Honorable Rosie Alvarado, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARION, JUSTICE CHAPA, AND JUSTICE WATKINS

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the motion to dismiss filed by 

appellants Dennis Buxton and Son Chu Buxton is GRANTED and this appeal is DISMISSED. 

We order that appellees United Services Automobile Association and Reed Whiting 

recover their costs of this appeal, if any, from appellants. 

SIGNED August 26, 2020.

_____________________________

Beth Watkins, Justice
Major, USAF

10P-SECREr

f StLa4110 ZOOM DIP10 O4SW 3.l.$

000 SJOIC:•*C SSSO i0 DOI DO: *DSO

Inte na cams. *A

lep+ Of awls

jr-satter • liiiii1111111

.••

NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE

WASHIHGTOP.. 0.C.

February 11, 1971

•

THE NRO STAFF

•

•

Regarding our conversation of last week, following

are some thoughts on a repeat request for COMIREX to

address the requirements posed by a Strategic Arms

Limitation Treaty. This requirement should be incorporated

in the COMIREX Guidelines which you are preparing.

It is requested that COMIREX define the total

photographic requirements expected with the advent of

a Strategic Arms Limitation agreement with the Soviet

Union. Since there is no way of defining the precise

terms of a potential agreement, it is reasonable to

assume that the U. S. August 4 proposal would be the

most comprehensive expected agreement. Many interagency

studies have been accomplished assessing the capability

to verify mutually independent activities, such as upgrading

fixed ICBMs, and SAM upgrade to ABM. Lacking, however, is

a comprehensive study on the additive impact of the August 4

proposal taken as a whole. We are concerned that there may

be continuing highly concentrated requirements, such as

monitoring a large geographic area for verifying deployment

of mobile ICBMs, which would be additive to the normally

tasked required coverage. It is felt that effort expended

in definition at this time will be fruitful in assuring

that there are sufficient XRP resources available to satisfy

foreseen normal and new SAL generated requirements.

. . '

aMEMORANDUM FOR CAPTAIN DRAIM

SUBJECT: COMIREX Guidelines
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 April 21, 2017

Order 

Clerk

April 21, 2017

155395-6(68)

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff/Counterdefendant- Appellee, SC: 155395

v COA: 329585

Kent CC: 13-010616-CK

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY,

Defendant/Cross-Defendant- Appellant,

and

MARK RUECKERT and MARYAN PETOSKEY,

Defendants-Appellees, and

ROBYNN RUECKERT,

Defendant/Counterplaintiff/Cross- Plaintiff-Appellee.

___________________________________________/

ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, Plaintiff-Appellant, SC: 155396

v COA: 329614

Kent CC: 15-000605-CK

FARM BUREAU GENERAL INSURANCE

COMPANY OF MICHIGAN,

Defendant-Appellee.

___________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of appellant Ace American Insurance 

Company to extend the time for filing its reply is GRANTED. The reply will be accepted 

as timely filed if submitted on or before May 9, 2017.
Exhibit
      32.2








**Certification
      of Chief Financial Officer**





Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
      2002, the undersigned officer of Tanger Properties Limited Partnership (the
      “ Operating
      Partnership ”)
      hereby
      certifies, to such officer’s knowledge, that:





(i)  the
      accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarter ended
      June 30, 2006 (the “ Report ”)
      fully
      complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable,
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(ii)  the
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Operating
      Partnership.





Pursuant
      to the rules and regulations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, this
      certification is being furnished and is not deemed filed.





Date:
                August 4, 2006
            /s/
              Frank C. Marchisello, Jr.Frank
                C. Marchisello, Jr.
              Vice
                President, Treasurer & Assistant Secretary of Tanger GP Trust, Sole
                General Partner of the Registrant
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23

- 6912

DAVID ANTONIO LITTLE, JR. , Plaintiff

- Appellant ,

v. CODY DIXON, Chesterfield County Sheriff; DAVID BROWN, Chesterfield County Sheriff , Defendants

- Appellees,
and TYLER GOLDBACH, MD; JAMES DIXON, Sheriff,
Defendants

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Rock Hill

. Richard Mark Gergel , District Judge. ( 0:22

- cv - 03851

- RMG )

Submitted : January 30, 2024 Decided: February 6, 2024

Before KING, AGEE , and THACKER , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion

. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 1 of 32 David Antonio Little, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. William Henry Davidson, II, DAVIDSON, WREN & DEMASTERS, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 2 of 33 PER CURIAM: David Antonio Little, Jr., appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on Little ’s 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court ’s order

. Little v. Dixon , No. 0:22

- cv - 03851

- RMG (D.S.C. Sept. 5, 2023). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED USCA4 Appeal: 23-6912 Doc: 19 Filed: 02/06/2024 Pg: 3 of 3
Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111933 

SECRET 

~ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

( (, r:_ HANDLE ViA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

THE NRO STAFF 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

November 21, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: NASA-FCIC 3" Camera Contract 

Mr. Floyd Sweet, NASA, called regarding a Garden 

City, Long Island, DCAS, technical evaluation of the 3" 

camera system. He was concerned that it "could blow 

the cover" and could my contacts at DSA turn off the 

evaluation. I asked exactly what the problem was--he 

did not know. I asked why the evaluation was being 

conducted--his response was "at NASA's request." I 

asked him to isolate the problem, and told him I could 

not intervene in a NASA directed review of a NASA program. 

My recommendation was that if the program could not 

stand up as documented to a technical evaluation that 

NASA limit the evaluation to an appropriate scope or 

cancel the evaluation. 

tain, 

Dep Asst for Security 

asreRE, F.XCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200.10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111933 

coNTROLNo Internal COPY ___ oF ___ coPIES 

PAGE ] OF_........__ PAGES 
THE NRO STAFF 

HANDI.E VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111933 

SEeRET 

(SJ NATIONAL RECONNAISSANCE OFFICE 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

HANDLE VIA 

BYEMAN 

CONTROL SYSTEM 

November 14, 1969 

MEMORANDUM FOR THE RECORD 

SUBJECT: NASA-FCIC 3 11 Camera Contract 

On November 13, 1969, Mr. Floyd Sweet called regarding 

pressure being applied within NASA by Richard Dickerson, 

MSC, to reveal prior data on the 3" camera. I told Mr. 

Sweet that if there was a definite need for data to complete 

their requirements, I would assist in any way possible 

(sanitized information or access); however, if it is a 

question of NASA discipline and living up to their agreement 

that they would accept our data and not delve back in 

history that is causing the problem, then it must be solved 

in-house by NASA. We do not grant access to satisfy 

personal curiosity. 

Captain, 

Dep Asst for Security 

.. S!tft:H.-__ EXCLUDED FROM AUTOMATIC REGRADING 

DOD DIRECTIVE 5200, 10 DOES NOT APPLY 

Approved for Release: 2020/02/07 C05111933 

CONTROL No-=I=n~t~ec....r-=n~a_l __ COPY ___ oF ___ COPIES 

PAGE 1 OF_~l~_PAGES
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-4851

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus MARIO L. RICHARDSON, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, District Judge. (CR-98-146) Submitted: May 11, 1999 Decided: May 27, 1999 Before MURNAGHAN, LUTTIG, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Edwin F. Brooks, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Helen F. Fahey, United States Attorney, Shannon L. Taylor, Special Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Mario Richardson appeals his conviction and sentence followinghis guilty plea to one count of possession with intent to distribute a controlled substance in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841 (1994) and one count of carrying a firearm during and in relation to a drug trafficking offense in violation of 18 U.S.C.A. § 924(c) (West 1994 & Supp. 1999). Richardson preserved his right to appealthe district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained when police stopped him at a roadblock checkpoint. We conclude that the district court properly found the search and seizure did not violate the Fourth Amendment and the court correctly concluded that the evidence was admissible. See Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1 10, 23 (1968). We therefore affirm the court’s denial of Richardson’s suppression motion based upon the court’s reasoning as stated at the suppression hearing. According, we affirm Richardson’s conviction and sentence. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument could not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 20-60094

Summary Calendar

Arturo Espino-Martinez, 

Petitioner,

versus

Merrick Garland, U.S. Attorney General, 

Respondent.

Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

BIA No. A206 261 764

Before Jolly, Willett, and Engelhardt, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Arturo Espino-Martinez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions us 

to review the Board of Immigration Appeal’s denial of his motion to 

reconsider. He argues that we can review the determination that he 

committed a crime of moral turpitude and he argues that the incorrect 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 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 Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 15, 2021

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 20-60094 Document: 00516056952 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
No. 20-60094

2

analyticalstandard was applied to this claim. We lack jurisdiction to consider 

the discretionary denial of the claims in this case. See INS v. Rios-Pineda, 471 

U.S. 444, 449 (1985); Peralex v. Casillas, 903 F.2d 1043, 1051 (5th Cir. 1990). 

DISMISSED. 

Case: 20-60094 Document: 00516056952 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/15/2021
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 32 (Wednesday, February 18, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8754-8755]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-03372]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration

[Docket No. DOT-MARAD 2015 0020]


Request for Comments of a Previously Approved Information 
Collection

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information 
Collection Request (ICR) abstracted below is being forwarded to the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comments. A 
Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period soliciting 
comments on the following information collection was published on 
November 26, 2014 (Federal Register 70610, Vol. 79, No. 228).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before March 20, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Gearhart, 202-366-1867, 
Office of Shipyards and Marine Engineering, Maritime Administration 
1200 New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Title: Shipbuilding Orderbook and Shipyard Employment.
    OMB Control Number: 2133-0029.
    Type of Request: Renewal of a Previously Approved Information 
Collection.
    Abstract: MARAD collects this information from the shipbuilding and 
ship repair industry primarily to determine if an adequate mobilization 
base exists for national defense and for use in a national emergency.

[[Page 8755]]

    Affected Public: Owners of U.S. shipyards who agree to complete the 
requested information.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 200.
    Estimated Number of Responses: 800.
    Annual Estimated Total Annual Burden Hours: 400.

ADDRESSES: Send comments regarding the burden estimate, including 
suggestions for reducing the burden, to the Office of Management and 
Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Office of the Secretary of 
Transportation, 725 17th Street NW., Washington, DC 20503. Comments are 
invited on: Whether the proposed collection of information is necessary 
for the proper performance of the functions of the Department, 
including whether the information will have practical utility; the 
accuracy of the Department's estimate of the burden of the proposed 
information collection; ways to enhance the quality, utility and 
clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the 
burden of the collection of information on respondents, including the 
use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology.

    Authority:  The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995; 44 U.S.C. 
Chapter 35, as amended; and 49 CFR 1.93.

    Dated: February 10, 2015.
Christine Gurland,
Acting Secretary, Maritime Administration.
[FR Doc. 2015-03372 Filed 2-17-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P
<PAGE>   1
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 11.1
 
                           MULTICOM PUBLISHING, INC.
 
                       COMPUTATION OF NET LOSS PER COMMON
                          AND COMMON EQUIVALENT SHARES
 
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                     YEAR ENDED        YEAR ENDED
                                                                    JUNE 30, 1996     JUNE 30, 1997
                                                                    -------------     -------------
<S>                                                                 <C>               <C>
Net loss before extraordinary items...............................   $ (4,090,853)     $ (5,637,381)
Extraordinary items...............................................             --        (1,302,473)
                                                                      -----------       -----------
Net loss..........................................................     (4,090,853)       (6,939,854)
Dividends on Preferred Stock......................................             --          (133,464)
                                                                      -----------       -----------
Net loss available for common shareholders........................   $ (4,090,853)     $ (7,073,318)
                                                                      ===========       ===========
Applicable common shares:
  Average outstanding during the period...........................      3,409,434         5,960,243
  Average mandatorily redeemable stock outstanding during the
     period.......................................................        825,000                --
  Outstanding stock options(1)....................................        683,051                --
                                                                      -----------       -----------
Weighted average number of common shares and common share
  equivalents outstanding.........................................      4,917,485         5,960,243
                                                                      ===========       ===========
Net loss before extraordinary items per common share..............   $       (.83)     $       (.97)
Extraordinary items per common share..............................             --              (.22)
                                                                      -----------       -----------
Net loss per common share.........................................   $       (.83)     $      (1.19)
                                                                      ===========       ===========
</TABLE>
 
---------------
 
(1) Based on the treasury stock method.