alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 105 (Thursday, May 31, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32167-32168]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-13226]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7903]

Notice of Renewal of Advisory Committee on International Law 
Charter

    Summary: The Department of State has renewed the Charter of the 
Advisory Committee on International Law. Through this Committee, the 
Department of State will continue to obtain the views and advice of a 
cross section of the country's outstanding members of the legal 
profession on significant issues of international law. The Committee's 
consideration of these legal issues in the conduct of our foreign 
affairs provides a unique contribution to the creation and promotion of 
U.S. foreign policy. The Under Secretary for Management has determined 
the Committee is necessary and in the public interest.
    The Committee is comprised of all former Legal Advisers of the 
Department of State and up to 25 individuals appointed by the current 
Legal Adviser. The Committee follows the procedures prescribed by the 
Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). Meetings will be open to the 
public unless a determination is made in accordance with section 1 O(d) 
of the FACA and 5 U.S.C. 552b(c) that a meeting or portion of the 
meeting should be closed to the public. Notice of each meeting will be

[[Page 32168]]

published in the Federal Register at least 15 days prior to the 
meeting, unless there are extraordinary circumstances that require 
shorter notice.
    For further information, please contact Theodore P. Kill, Executive 
Director, Advisory Committee on International Law, Department of State, 
at 202-776-8344 or killtp@state.gov.

    Dated: May 23, 2012.
Theodore P. Kill,
Attorney Advisor, Office of Claims and Investment, Office of the Legal 
Advisor, Executive Director, Advisory Committee on International Law.
[FR Doc. 2012-13226 Filed 5-30-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
```
Calculation of weighted average for the year  ended Dec 31/00
BrainTech, Inc.

Beginning Balance                    41,338,333

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

Period ended       No. of Shares      Contribution to   Ending Balance
                   Issued             Weighted Avg.
<S>                <C>                <C>               <C>

Mar. 31, 2000      4,251,000          3,893,918         45,589,333
Jun. 30, 2000          5,000              3,593         45,594,333
Sep. 30, 2000          5,000              1,489         45,599,333
Dec. 31, 2000              0                  0         45,599,333

TOTAL              4,261,000          3,899,000

</TABLE>

Total weighted average shares outstanding:   45,237,333
Less shares held by company:                  1,500,000
                                             ----------
Balance:                                     43,737,333

Comprehensive loss for the period:             $508,003

Net loss per share                          $      0.01
Exhibit 11

                         AUTOINFO, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                        Calculation of Earnings Per Share

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                              Nine Months Ended            Three Months Ended
                                          September 30,    August 31,   September 30,   August 31,
                                               1996           1995           1996          1995
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
<S>                                        <C>            <C>            <C>           <C>        
Primarily and fully diluted 
  earnings (loss):
Earnings (loss) from operations  
  applicable to common stock
     From continuing operations            $ 1,091,010    $(1,807,380)   $   235,855   $   131,081

     From discontinued operations                 --        9,709,095           --         228,935
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
     Net income                            $ 1,091,000    $ 7,901,715    $   235,855   $   360,016
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------

Shares:
     Weighted average number of
     common shares outstanding               7,886,478      7,492,691      7,954,752     7,757,736
     Add shares issuable from assumed
     exercise of options and warrants           31,851         68,786         45,863         6,309
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
   Weighted average number of common
     shares as adjusted                      7,918,329      7,561,477      8,000,615     7,764,045
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------

Primary and fully diluted earnings 
  per common share:
     From continuing operations            $      0.14    $      (.24)   $      0.03   $       .02
     From discontinued operations                 --             1.28           --             .03
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
     Net income                            $      0.14    $      1.04    $      0.03   $       .05
                                           -----------    -----------    -----------   -----------
</TABLE>


                                       15
OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN 

. 
iIG23Xi)iQ JO!2 C. Xzzbur~er, Pn~o 2 

*%nce t3c.Co!~titutio2 a& the S~u~lore=lo CoILIt. 

msoifiaaily bold thut 3ahool districtdhavo ~0 

z&i-d OL‘ authoritjr to.enter i;lto ouch contraots, 

ruch contracts. cm alearly ultra viras. 

R . . l . 

n 

Your l&tar continues by citing 10 Tax. Jur. pp. 

135 to 1.87 an& by slotiug your c~xCtz3fon that a Sire in- 

~.~y~:;CC pcllcy iasus8 by a inutwl ooqmny on property be- 

-lo= U,+-g -.*-i to c 3ohcol district could not be cr.fozced by tho 

~:~.~,~~c$ actor 1% &6 suflered 3 fire 1033 on tiuoh property. 
a ~cwX.~f, of tko sciiool distziotts crocit. ?ho Opinion 

r~-dc~&zcu thc.t the llabillty of t&e nolic?rLiolear la ttot 

ti*ua sp3aii%xl La the policy. 

_ 

Cara w.ti ihit8d t0 thG ?re 

03 the ccatrury auoh doci3133. ic bzsed equsrely 

or& t:o ~rort?C that tho.polioyholk - ian a mutual inr?umnce 

ccri1;_3az;T besoms in efToct a stookholC!er ar~d the oonstitu- 

:io;?;l provision quoted by you prohibits a retool blstrict 

Snx beomin~ such a stoo'kholifsr. It follo:~3 that the oere 

Scot that p,-etikim nero paid by third parties would not aSrect ths cc~ool.~istrict~s r&-&t or lack of right to beoom 

a px- -*+cyhol&or in a~nutual insurance ompany. 38 therefore 

agree that the coatYaot of iwmxnoe is illegal evea though . 

et.- wa~ pYZiW9 is not paid by thG OChOoi GiStYfOt. 

As ve un&xstunU your,lettor no. policy h& as yi3t 

$xz2 ItcUOd by the mtual Cori~ to tha SOhOOl aif3w0t and 

thmofore tiio quo&loo.-& to whether or not there is any 

3r5rciplo 'or mthozI by wh&h the distrfot Could .OOilGCt~ fO* 

rt;, loss a3xr.a.Sire oooua*reU in purely hypothotLoal and 

~$8 Co zot bvlieve this,depE+.Uent should czp,ress an opinion 

thorooix. 

%'G hopa.thGt thiG'&siOn viii1 be htip,fUi t0 pOU 

IX ",~a dc~omimtion of your problen. 

. 

DonaldGay 

.Assistant
AD Economic Evaluation



### Docket No . FAA

- 2015

- 7095 Directorate ID : 2015

- SW

- 085

- AD

Helicopter Model: Sikorsky Aircraft Corporation Model S

- 92A Helicopters.

Number of Helicopters (U.S. Operators): 80 Helicopters in the US Reg istry.

Reason : The actions are intended to prevent a crack in the tail gearbox center housing, which

could lead to loss of tail rotor drive and loss of helicopter control.

Costs :

Parts per Helicopter $ 58,000

Labor per Helicopter

( 24 work hours X $85 f

or

inspection ) $ 2,040

Other

(Explain)

Total Cost per Helicopter $60,040

Executive Order 12866 :

Could the AD be considered a “significant regulatory action?” Yes ( ) No (  )

DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures :

Is the AD signif

icant? Yes ( ) Explain Below No (  )

Regulatory Flexibility Act :

Will the AD have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities?

Yes ( ) No (  )

Project Engineer : Kristopher Greer
;

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORC

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY

MEMORANDUM

March 19, 1973

NOTE FOR DR. MCLUCAS

The attached message is for your

information.

Lt Colone1, U

•••••• ••• n•••n•••• .N.I.MI•••••1••ir r.
•

.

.

. •

OFFICE OF SPLXIN. PRO.E013. ! ;:17i14r lU NM: 1l IN PURSUING 114E PRCIQUAIS OF:.1HIS.:OFFICE.•. CE FOR 1E AV I HAVE A z

BEM OM 'GREAT.OEM,. OF PRICE 1NTICROUCTItelps:

2.WPECTIVE IANOI : 1973;1. LL.TARE 0IREc1OR OF SPEC, /L., PROJIC1S:11111.1 RILL CONTINUE AS ALTING.PROCIUM 0 IS DES ICHATE) . GERM DIREC101‘..I 

!CATION A‘10 COOPERATION NIU: BE /COM= TIVAT TIC *

AC COO!) UJOC TIEM.T.MATiIif* /N0 114/t1C YOU, DOOM • •

.

'

. . •

•

. •

• ARIAN .*.

• : . ''• .t s•

▪

•

:n••

▪

 • ' ••• .• • •.e.. • • ••••• *. 6.4

ft•i....41%)...

.: .

•

' • . • ..• •••• ••;1•1....s • • l '•••%1.

•

.• • • • • •." : • • • • • •• : • • • . ••• r • • • •,C. Ir.•.1° • -.4.11e•

-• • • : • • " • . • •.• • • •:••••:•••

. 4 1.7 • • ••••'•• ,.•••:•••••.0iFlit„..ii.'"•*••:•;*!..• •

.• •

. • I. * .••• • • "•• • tr.,`. •,•••,;* .1 • ••-• • • • . • • •. • • .• • • •

. • • •

^ •

• •••'...."

••• •

,„ • • • .

•••• .4.• • •

••••

▪

rt. • "7 . I tkr

•

A

. • ., • ... • .• • . : .. ' : • ... . . .. -• , ... . ... • .... • . :1..1 .14.....:4:: .

. 40/3 • • .

.. • •• • . • • • • • • •,' • • ••:•" •• • .. •••?' 1..: .;••. • '... : .: . “ . . . g ti:*.:.;f..1

•• • • :. • •

I

,.;‘,4 `.0.)X1.11....4.

• 

...: z. •Y •

.

' • • ' ':: ' ' 7.•

.. • .. • • • • • • • ; .1•••• ` ••• • • ." • , •• • '1'. 4 . 4. .• '.' .1•••.. !f ?: •Ii'''

.

. •

.. • .

. . . •

.. •

1 ti :.•: • ,•.• 9 • • •• : rt:

.

- .

. - ..

' • ..'''..-,:k..

.. .7. • • • , • ...- ' -: .7:..,,1 ::.1.sp.i...'-.-....:•;;;; . ; .. -... ';':'..,:' :

::4Aiir

17.536 "'r •-• • 

. •

.' • •
Exhibit 21.1

AMF BOWLING WORLDWIDE, INC.

Subsidiary Corporations



|                                            |  |                       
|------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------
|Entity                                      |  | Jurisdiction of Origin
|                                           
|                                           
|AMF Holdings, Inc.                          |  | Delaware              
|ABC Ventures LLC                            |  | Delaware              
|AMF Bowling Products UK Limited             |  | United Kingdom        
|AMF BCH LLC                                 |  | Delaware              
|AMF WBCH LLC                                |  | Delaware              
|Societe Anonyme du Bowling de Montparnasse  |  | France                
|AMF Bowling de Lyon La Part Dieu SNC        |  | France                
|AMF Worldwide Bowling Centers Holdings Inc. |  | Delaware              
|AMF Bowling Centers International Inc.      |  | Virginia              
|AMF Bowling Mexico Holding, Inc.            |  | Delaware              
|Boliches AMF, Inc.                          |  | Virginia              
|Boliches AMF y Compania                     |  | Mexico                
|Servicios AMF, S.A. de C.V                  |  | Mexico                
|Inmuebles Obispado, S.A.                    |  | Mexico                
|Inmuebles Minerva, S.A.                     |  | Mexico                
|Boliches Mexicanos, S.A.                    |  | Mexico                
|Promotora de Boliches, S.A. de C.V.         |  | Mexico                
|Operadora Mexicana de Boliches, S.A.        |  | Mexico                
|AMF Bowling Centers Holdings Inc.           |  | Delaware              
|300, Inc.                                   |  | Texas                 
|Bush River Corporation                      |  | South Carolina        
|King Louie Lenexa, Inc.                     |  | Kansas                
|AMF Beverage Company of Oregon, Inc.        |  | Oregon                
|AMF Bowling Centers, Inc.                   |  | Virginia              
|American Recreation Centers, Inc.           |  | California            
|Prince Georges Concession, Inc.            |  | Maryland              
|Marlow Concession Company                   |  | Maryland              
|The Bowlers Choice Restaurant, Inc.        |  | Maryland              
|Fair Lanes Edgewood Restaurant, Inc.        |  | Maryland              
|Corner Restaurant East, Inc.                |  | Maryland              
|Southdale Bowlers Restaurant, Inc.         |  | Maryland
EXHIBIT 32.1



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATIONS



In connection with the Annual Report of Axtive Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the annual period ended December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, in the capacities and dates indicated below, hereby certify 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.



|                                                  |  |                     
|------------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------
|/s/ GRAHAM C. BEACHUM II                          |  | Date: March 31, 2005
|Graham C. Beachum II                              |  |                     
|Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive
Officer |  |                     
|                                                  | 
|/s/ STEPHEN P. SLAY                               |  | Date: March 31, 2005
|Stephen P. Slay                                   |  |                     
|Corporate Controller                              |  |                     
|                                                  |  |                     
|                                                  |  |                     



These Certifications
shall not be deemed to be filed or part of the referenced Annual Report on Form 10-KSB or incorporated by reference into any of the registrants filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission by implication or by any reference
in any such filing to such report.
SCAD-20-0000073 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ʻ I
IN RE: WESLEY Y.S. CHANG (Deceased)

Bar. No. 1292

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING (ODC #18-0249) ORDER (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, McKenna, Wilson, and Eddins, JJ.)

Upon consideration of the report, submitted on June 24, 2021 by Bradley Tamm of the Office of Disciplinary Counsel (ODC), as Trustee, pursuant to Rule 2.20 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of the State of Hawai ʻ i (RSCH), over the solo legal practice of deceased attorney Wesley Y.S. Chang, and the record in this matter, we conclude that nothing further remains for Trustee Tamm to do in this trusteeship, and that the remaining funds in Chang’s former client trust account at Bank of Hawaii, ending in x4207, will, on June 18, 2023, be ripe for a motion that they be declared abandoned and to escheat to the state, pursuant to HRS Ch. 523A. Therefore, Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCAD-20-0000073 28-JUN-2021 12:00 PM Dkt. 23 ORDIT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the final report is approved,

and that Tamm is discharged from his duties as Trustee in this
matter. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Trustee Administrator at ODC shall hold the funds in the Bank of Hawaii account x4207 until June 18, 2023, at which time this court will entertain a motion that any remaining funds therein be declared abandoned and that they escheat to the state.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ʻ i, June 28, 2021. /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Todd W. Eddins

2
#### William G. Erwin *v.*Sarah Erwin.

An appellant who has failed to file his appeal, is not entitled to a certiorari, after a delay of three terms. He should apply at the first term, unless prevented by accident.

This was an application for a rule upon the defendant, to show cause why a *certiorari*should not issue. The applicant swore, that the judgment against him was rendered *at the*Spring Term 1831, of Rutherford Superior Court; that he then prayed an appeal, which was allowed; that the appeal bond and the record of the cause were sealed up, and deposited in the Post-office at Rutherfordton, the postage being paid, directed to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, in time to reach the office of that court, within the first seven days of the ensuing term ,• that not hearing of any adjudication in the cause, he had, since the last term of the court, caused enquiries to be made, from which he learned that the package above mentioned, bad never come to the hands of the Clerk of the Supreme Court.

No counsel appeared for the applicant.

*529Ruffin Judge.

The appeal was taken in April, 1831, and this application for a *certiorari*is now made —in December 1832, eighteen months, after the record ought to have been filed in this court. We do not think proper to consider whether the grounds laid for the relief asked, would have been sufficient, liad the motion been made at an earlier and proper period. For the motion comes out of due time, and must on that ground, be refused.

It is true, the party swears, that since the last term, he learned for the first time, that the transcript had miscarried. But his duty was to have enquired earlier; to attend to his cause, in person or by attorney, at the first term (unless prevented by accident;) and then to have taken the necessary steps to have the case brought up and decided.

By the course of the court, the application for this extraordinary remedy must be made as soon as the party • can, after losing the benefit of his appeal. It can no more be granted to one who is dilatory in asking for it, than it can be to one who has neglected to pray an appeal when in his power. He who fails from negligence, duly to. prosecute an appeal, is as little entitled to aid, as he who from the same cause, failed to obtain an appeal. The rule is therefore refused.

Per Curiam. — Ruxe refused.
```

                                                                    Exhibit 32.2

                                  CERTIFICATION
                          REQUIRED BY RULE 13a-14(b) OR
                    RULE 15d-14(b) AND 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
           AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         I, Richard W. Lucas,  as Chief  Financial  Officer of KSW,  Inc.,  (the
"Company"), certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350 (as adopted by Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002), that to my knowledge:

         (1) the  accompanying  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period
ending March 31, 2006 (the "Report") filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange
Commission,  fully complies with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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

Dated:  May 12, 2006

                                         /s/Richard W. Lucas
                                         -----------------------
                                         Richard W. Lucas
                                         Chief Financial Officer
```
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 136 Enrolled Bill (ENR)]

        S.136

                     One Hundred Fourteenth Congress

                                 of the

                        United States of America

                          AT THE FIRST SESSION

          Begun and held at the City of Washington on Tuesday,
           the sixth day of January, two thousand and fifteen

                                 An Act

 
  To amend chapter 21 of title 5, United States Code, to provide that 
 fathers of certain permanently disabled or deceased veterans shall be 
   included with mothers of such veterans as preference eligibles for 
                     treatment in the civil service.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
    This Act may be cited as the ``Gold Star Fathers Act of 2015''.
SEC. 2. PREFERENCE ELIGIBLE TREATMENT FOR FATHERS OF CERTAIN 
PERMANENTLY DISABLED OR DECEASED VETERANS.
    Section 2108(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended by 
striking subparagraphs (F) and (G) and inserting the following:
            ``(F) the parent of an individual who lost his or her life 
        under honorable conditions while serving in the armed forces 
        during a period named by paragraph (1)(A) of this section, if--
                ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and 
            permanently disabled; or
                ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
            unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
            spouse;
            ``(G) the parent of a service-connected permanently and 
        totally disabled veteran, if--
                ``(i) the spouse of that parent is totally and 
            permanently disabled; or
                ``(ii) that parent, when preference is claimed, is 
            unmarried or, if married, legally separated from his or her 
            spouse; and''.
SEC. 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
    The amendment made by this Act shall take effect 90 days after the 
date of enactment of this Act.

                               Speaker of the House of Representatives.

                            Vice President of the United States and    
                                               President of the Senate.
```
Conservation Stewardship Program - Grassland Conservation Initiative Fiscal Year 2024 United States Department of Agriculture

Natural Resources Conservation Service

Code Practice Component Units Unit Cost

E300GCI Grassland Conservation Initiative Grassland Conservation Initiative Activity AC $18.00

CSP-Grassland Conservation Itiative Page 1 of 1 Hawaii - Fiscal Year 2024
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE REHEARING 

MOTION AND, IF FILED, DETERMINED 

 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL 

 OF FLORIDA 

 SECOND DISTRICT 

GERALD RODRIGUEZ, ) 

 ) 

 Appellant, ) 

 ) 

v. ) Case No. 2D16-3180 

 ) 

STATE OF FLORIDA, ) 

 ) 

 Appellee. ) 

 ) 

Opinion filed October 11, 2017. 

Appeal from the Circuit Court for Pinellas 

County; William H. Burgess, III, Judge. 

Howard L. Dimmig, II, Public Defender, 

and Kevin Briggs, Assistant Public 

Defender, Bartow, for Appellant. 

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee. 

PER CURIAM. 

 Mr. Rodriguez appeals from the judgment and sentence entered following 

the revocation of probation for the 2012 count of manufacturing marijuana, for which the 

trial court originally accepted his plea and withheld adjudication while he served the 

probationary sentence. We affirm the revocation and the judgment and sentence that 

were entered without further comment, but because the order of revocation does not 
- 2 - 

specify the conditions Rodriguez admitted violating, we remand for the entry of an order 

specifying those conditions. See Huggins v. State, 216 So. 3d 785 (Fla. 2d DCA 2017). 

 Affirmed; remanded with directions. 

NORTHCUTT, BLACK, and SALARIO, JJ., Concur.