alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 65 (Friday, April 4, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 16156]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-8663]


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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY


Agency Information Collection Activities: Submission for 
Emergency OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has submitted 
an emergency processing request for a proposed collection of 
information to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and 
clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). OMB approval has been requested by March 28, 1997.
    The purpose for the emergency processing request is to obtain 
short-term emergency approval for the collection of information titled 
``Progress Report'' and to reinstate the collection of information 
under the previously assigned OMB Control Number 3067-0151.
    A notice published in Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 57, dated March 
25, 1997, page 14142, describes and seeks comments on the proposed 
collection. FEMA will accept comments through May 27, 1997.

ADDRESSEE: Direct all comments on the request for emergency processing 
to the Office of Management and Budget, Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, ATTN: Victoria Becker-Wassmer, Washington, DC 
20503, telephone number (202) 395-5871.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Muriel B. Anderson at (202) 
646-2625 for copies of the proposed collection of information.

    Dated: March 26, 1997.
Reginald Trujillo,
Director, Program Services Division, Operations Support Directorate.
[FR Doc. 97-8663 Filed 4-3-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-01-M
268P16

#### Owen D. Leavitt v. Willie Hargrove

1. Pit’s *Pro Se*Petition for *Writ of Certiorari*to Review Order of COA (COAP16-351)

2. Pit’s *Pro Se*Motion to Proceed *In Forma Pauperis*

1. Denied

2. Allowed
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 76 (Tuesday, April 21, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Page 19726]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-10402]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

[Report No. 2268]


Petitions for Reconsideration and Clarification of Action in 
Rulemaking Proceeding

April 15, 1998.
    Petitions for reconsideration and clarification have been filed in 
the Commission's rulemaking proceedings listed in this Public Notice 
and published pursuant to 47 CFR Section 1.429(e). The full text of 
these documents are available for viewing and copying in Room 239, 1919 
M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. or may be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800. Oppositions to 
these petitions must be filed May 6, 1998. See Section 1.4(b)(1) of the 
Commission's rule (47 CFR 1.4(b)(1)). Replies to an opposition must be 
filed within 10 days after the time for filing oppositions has expired.
    Subject: Billed Party Preference for InterLATA 0+Calls (CC Docket 
No. 92-77).
    Number of Petitions Filed: 9.

Federal Communications Commission.
Magalie Roman Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-10402 Filed 4-20-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE MARSHALL
INDUSTRIES ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAY-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JUN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1999
<CASH>                                           1,697
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  237,289
<ALLOWANCES>                                   (9,350)
<INVENTORY>                                    343,993
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               598,846
<PP&E>                                         101,124
<DEPRECIATION>                                (63,512)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 795,702
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          222,314
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        16,621
<OTHER-SE>                                     407,305
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   795,702
<SALES>                                        446,937
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               446,937
<CGS>                                          379,628
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  428,806
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   586
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   812
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,754
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,791
<INCOME-TAX>                                     6,343
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,448
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,448
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.51
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.50


</TABLE>
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 14**  **- 6690** 

RODERICK JEROME ENGLISH , Plaintiff

– Appellant ,
v. WILLIAM R. BYARS, JR.; R. SALTBURG; CHERON M. HESS; ANN HALLMAN; JANNITA GATSON; CHRISTOPHER FLORAN BRADFORD DRAWLINSON , Defendants

- Appellees
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina , at Aiken
. Joseph F. Anderson, Jr. , District Judge. ( 1:13

- cv - 02858

- JFA )

Submitted : August 21, 2014 Decided: August 26, 2014

Before SHEDD, AGEE, and KEENAN , Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by un published per curiam opinion
. Roderick Jerome English, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Roderick Jerome English appeals the district court ’ s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (20 12 ) complaint. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, w e affirm for the reasons stated by the district
court. English v. Byars , No. 1:13

- cv - 02858

- JFA (D.S.C. Apr. 1, 2014) . We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before th is court and a rgument would not aid the decisional
process.

AFFIRMED
<PAGE>
                                                                     EXHIBIT 4.3



                               FIFTH AMENDMENT TO
                            GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC.
                        1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN


         WHEREAS, GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. (the "Company") has heretofore
adopted the GROUP 1 AUTOMOTIVE, INC. 1998 EMPLOYEE STOCK PURCHASE PLAN (the
"Plan"); and

         WHEREAS, the Company desires to amend the Plan in certain respects;

         NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan shall be amended as follows:

         1. Subject to the provisions of paragraph 2 hereof, the first sentence
of paragraph 6 of the Plan shall be deleted and the following shall be
substituted therefore:

                  "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 13, the aggregate
                  number of shares which may be sold pursuant to options granted
                  under the Plan shall not exceed 2,000,000 shares of the
                  authorized Stock, which shares may be unissued shares or
                  reacquired shares, including shares bought on the market or
                  otherwise for purposes of the Plan."

         2. This Fifth Amendment to the Plan shall be effective as of February
26, 2003, provided that this Fifth Amendment to the Plan is approved by the
stockholders of the Company at the 2003 annual meeting of the Company's
stockholders. No more than 1,500,000 shares of Stock (the number of shares
currently subject to the Plan) shall be issued or delivered under the Plan prior
to such stockholder approval. If the stockholders fail to approve this Fifth
Amendment to the Plan as provided above, then the Company shall promptly refund
to each participant the amount of such participant's payroll deductions under
the Plan that may not be used to purchase in excess of the 1,500,000 shares
currently subject to the Plan.

         3. As amended hereby, the Plan is specifically ratified and reaffirmed.
857.016
EXHIBIT 32.4  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 on Form 10-Q of Madison Gas and Electric Company for the period ended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof ("the Report"), I, Terry A. Hanson, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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/ Terry A. Hanson Terry A. Hanson Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary Date: May 8, 2007
fide services performed (whether as an employee or an independent contractor) over the immediatelypreceding thirty-six (36) month period).          3.4.1. **Specified Employee**. If on the date of the Executive’s Separation from Service,the Executive is a “specified employee” as defined in Treasury regulation section 1.409-1(i) orsuch other regulation or guidance issued under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, thenpayment of the lump sum cash severance described in Section 3.2.3(a)(ii) shall be delayed until theearlier of the first day of the seventh month following the Executive’s Separation from Service orthe date of his death, at which time the Executive shall receive the lump sum cash severancepayment, together with interest, compounded annually, equal to the prime rate (as published in TheWall Street Journal) in effect as of the Separation from Service. If the subsizided COBRA coverageunder Section 3.2.3(a)(iii) (or reimbursements for the cost of such coverage, as applicable) istaxable to the Executive, then to the extent necessary to avoid a violation of section 409A of theInternal Revenue Code, the Executive shall pay for such coverage for the first six months followinghis Separation from Service and shall be reimbursed for such payments on the first day of theseventh month following his Separation from Service, together with interest, compounded annually,equal to the prime rate (as published in The Wall Street Journal) in effect as of the Separationfrom Service.     IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Amendment to Employment Agreement has been signed by the partieshereto on the date set forth below.     ADC Telecommunications, Inc.     /s/Laura N. Owen Laura N. Owen /s/ Robert E. Switz Robert E. Switz  VicePresident, Chief Administrative Officer
```

[Congressional Bills 116th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 103 Engrossed in House (EH)]

<DOC>
H. Res. 103

                In the House of Representatives, U. S.,

                                                      February 6, 2019.
    Resolved, That the following named Members be, and are hereby, elected to 
the following standing committee of the House of Representatives:
    Committee on House Administration: Mr. Walker, Mr. Loudermilk.
            Attest:

                                                                          Clerk.
```
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

Kurtis T. Wilder,

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.

September 1 5 , 2017 

# Order

Clerk September 1 5 , 2017

15 6301 ( 4 )

BRYAN NEWLAND

, Plaintiff,

SC: 15 6301

v AGC : 0346

- 15

ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION

, Defendant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the C hief Justice

, the motion of defendant to extend the time for filing

its response to the complaint for superintending control is GRANTED

. The response will

be accepted for filing if submitted on or before September 22 , 2017

.
#### State v. Martin

105,564

07/01/13

Denied.

Unpublished
#### Marcus B. HARRIS, Appellant/Petitioner(s), v. STATE of Florida, Appellee/Respondent(s).

CASE NO.: 2D16-3317

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

January 24, 2017

L.T. No.: 12-CF-002604

Denied,
### Need to return call by / at/between and

. Signature:

___________________________ Project No.: 0172.09.029 DISTRIBUTION

Page _ 1 _ of __ 1

_

Project Name: Steam Electric Rulemaking

TELEPHONE CALL RECORD

Outgoing Call Date: 12/19/2011 Time: 12:30 PM

Company Name: Black & Veatch Contact Name: Mark Aron

Phone No.: (913) 458

- 4882

Name: TJ Finseth

GENERAL SUBJECT : Bottom Ash Installation Costs and Bottom Ash Wet Sluicing Installations



## TOPICS DISCUSSED AND ACTION TAKEN

I contacted Mark Aron, Black & Veatch, on December 19, 2011 to discuss an appropriate installation cost factor

for the installation of a mechanical drag system on a new generating unit compared to a retrofit installation. Mr.

Aron stated that the installation cost factor should be lower for the new unit installati on. Mr. Aron suggested

that a cost factor of 2 (relative to the equipment costs) would be appropriate for a retrofit installation and a cost

factor of 1.8 or 1.9 would be more appropriate for a new generating unit. Mr. Aron explained that the

installatio n is easier for a new unit because for a retrofit, the existing bottom of the boiler has to be demolished

before the new mechanical drag system can be installed. Mr. Aron also stated that the engineering costs

associated with a new unit would be significa ntly less expensive compared to a retrofit. Mr. Aron explained

that for a retrofit installation, the design engineer has to design the demolition or the existing system and also

design for the new system, which may have significant complications to deal w ith existing buildings or

structures at the plant. For a new unit, the design engineer only has to design the new system and there

typically aren’t as many restrictions associated with existing buildings or structures because the entire unit is

being buil t from the ground up.

I also asked Mr. Aron about the number of wet sluicing bottom ash systems that Black & Veatch has either

installed or bid on over the last 20 years. Mr. Aron looked at his records and determined that the last wet

bottom ash handling system that he could find a record of was from 1997. Mr. Aron looked through the records

and found that Black & Veatch has submitted bids or installed mechanical drag systems at 19 power plants

since 1997. He stated that those 19 plants were a mix of re trofit installations and installations associated with

new generating units. Mr. Aron stated that no power plants are installing wet bottom ash systems anymore,

everyone is going with a mechanical drag system or completely dry systems.
**Exhibit
      32.1**




**Certification
      of Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer**


**Pursuant
      to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to**


**Section
      906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Samdrew V, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
      10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Melvin F. Lazar,
      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/
                  Melvin F. LazarMelvin
                  F. LazarPrincipal
                  Executive OfficerPrincipal
                  Financial OfficerJuly
                  1, 2008
## State of N ew York Su p reme Cou rt, A p p ellate Division Third J u dicial Dep artment Decided and Entered: June 18, 2015 106593

________________________________ THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, Respondent, v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER MARCUS JACKSON, Appellant.

________________________________ Calendar Date: April 30, 2015 Before: Lahtinen, J.P., Garry, Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ.

__________ John Ferrara, Monticello, for appellant. D. Holley Carnright, District Attorney, Kingston (Joan Gudesblatt Lamb of counsel), for respondent.

__________ Garry, J. Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Ulster County (Williams, J.), rendered October 22, 2013, convicting defendant upon his plea of guilty of the crime of rape in the third degree. Defendant entered a guilty plea to rape in the thirddegree, admitting that he had sexual intercourse with a 15-yearold girl when he was 22 years old. Pursuant to the plea agreement, he waived his right to appeal and was sentenced to a two-year prison term to be followed by 10 years of postrelease supervision. Defendant now appeals. As an initial matter, the record reflects that defendant's appeal waiver was knowing, voluntary and intelligent (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d 248, 256 [2006]; People v Callahan, 80 NY2d 273,-2- 106593

280 [1992]). County Court carefully explained the nature of the right being waived, including that it was separate and distinct from the trial-related rights automatically forfeited upon a guilty plea, ascertained that defendant had discussed it with his attorney and had no questions about it, and defendant signed a written waiver of appeal in open court (see People v Bradshaw, 18 NY3d 257, 264-265 [2011]; People v Ramos, 7 NY3d 737, 738 [2006]; People v Toback, 125 AD3d 1060, 1061 [2015], lv denied 25 NY3d 993 [2015]). The valid appeal waiver precludes defendant's challenge to the sentence as harsh and excessive (see People v Lopez, 6 NY3d at 255-256; People v Handly, 122 AD3d 1007, 1008 [2014]). Defendant's further claims that he was not advised that there would be mandatory surcharges and that County Court should have waived them were not raised before that court and, thus, are not preserved (see People v Young, 81 AD3d 995, 996 [2011], lv denied 16 NY3d 901 [2011]). In any event, we would have found no merit to these claims (see People v Hoti, 12 NY3d 742, 743 [2009]; People v Guerrero, 12 NY3d 45, 47 [2009]). Defendant's challenge to the indictment as duplicitous was forfeited by his guilty plea and appeal waiver, unless this constitutes a jurisdictional defect (see People v Iannone, 45 NY2d 589, 600-601 [1978]; People v Motz, 52 AD3d 1029, 1030 [2008], lv denied 11 NY3d 791 [2008]). The claim of duplicity (see People v Alonzo, 16 NY3d 267, 269 [2011]) does not constitute a jurisdictional defect (see People v Vega, 268 AD2d 686, 687 [2000], lv denied 95 NY2d 839 [2000]) and, thus, this claim was forfeited (see People v Cole, 118 AD3d 1098, 1099-1100 [2014]). Lahtinen, J.P., Egan Jr. and Rose, JJ., concur.-3- 106593

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger Clerk of the Court
III 

111TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 413 

Relative to the death of Representative John P. Murtha, of Pennsylvania. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

FEBRUARY 9 (legislative day, FEBRUARY 8), 2010 

Mr. REID (for himself, Mr. MCCONNELL, Mr. SPECTER, Mr. CASEY, Mr. 

AKAKA, Mr. ALEXANDER, Mr. BARRASSO, Mr. BAUCUS, Mr. BAYH, Mr. 

BEGICH, Mr. BENNET, Mr. BENNETT, Mr. BINGAMAN, Mr. BOND, Mrs. 

BOXER, Mr. BROWN of Massachusetts, Mr. BROWN of Ohio, Mr. 

BROWNBACK, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR, Mr. BURRIS, Mr. BYRD, Ms. 

CANTWELL, Mr. CARDIN, Mr. CARPER, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, 

Mr. COCHRAN, Ms. COLLINS, Mr. CONRAD, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, 

Mr. CRAPO, Mr. DEMINT, Mr. DODD, Mr. DORGAN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

ENSIGN, Mr. ENZI, Mr. FEINGOLD, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mr. FRANKEN, 

Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. GRASSLEY, Mr. GREGG, Mrs. 

HAGAN, Mr. HARKIN, Mr. HATCH, Mrs. HUTCHISON, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. 

INOUYE, Mr. ISAKSON, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. JOHNSON, Mr. KAUFMAN, Mr. 

KERRY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. KOHL, Mr. KYL, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. 

LAUTENBERG, Mr. LEAHY, Mr. LEMIEUX, Mr. LEVIN, Mr. LIEBERMAN, 

Mrs. LINCOLN, Mr. LUGAR, Mr. MCCAIN, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Mr. MENENDEZ, Mr. MERKLEY, Ms. MIKULSKI, Ms. MURKOWSKI, Mrs. MURRAY, 

Mr. NELSON of Nebraska, Mr. NELSON of Florida, Mr. PRYOR, Mr. 

REED, Mr. RISCH, Mr. ROBERTS, Mr. ROCKEFELLER, Mr. SANDERS, Mr. 

SCHUMER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mrs. SHAHEEN, Mr. SHELBY, Ms. SNOWE, Ms. 

STABENOW, Mr. TESTER, Mr. THUNE, Mr. UDALL of Colorado, Mr. 

UDALL of New Mexico, Mr. VITTER, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. WARNER, Mr. 

WEBB, Mr. WHITEHOUSE, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. WYDEN) submitted the 

following resolution; which was considered and agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Relative to the death of Representative John P. Murtha, 

of Pennsylvania. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

SRES 413 ATS 

1 Resolved, That the Senate has heard with profound 

2 sorrow and deep regret the announcement of the death 

3 of the Honorable John P. Murtha, late a Representative 

4 from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 

5 Resolved, That the Secretary communicate these reso6 lutions to the House of Representatives and transmit an 

7 enrolled copy thereof to the family of the deceased. 

8 Resolved, That when the Senate adjourns or recesses 

9 today, it stand adjourned or recessed as a further mark 

10 of respect to the memory of the deceased Representative. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS