alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 122 (Thursday, June 25, 1998)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 34622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16919]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 98-75, RM-9264]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Pauls Valley and Healdton, OK

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Wright 
& Wright, Inc. seeking the reallotment of Channel 249C3 from Pauls 
Valley, OK, to Healdton, OK, as the community's first or second local 
aural service, and the modification of Station KGOK's license to 
specify Healdton as its community of license. Channel 249C3 can be 
allotted to Healdton in compliance with the Commission's minimum 
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 6.6 
kilometers (4.1 miles) north, at coordinates 34-17-28 North Latitude; 
97-29-23 West Longitude, to accommodate petitioner's desired 
transmitter site.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before August 3, 1998, and reply 
comments on or before August 18, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC 20554. In 
addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Robert 
Lewis Thompson, Taylor Thiemann & Aitkin, L.C., 908 King Street, Suite 
300, Alexandria, VA 22314 (Counsel to petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 98-75, adopted May 20, 
1998, and released June 12, 1998. The full text of this Commission 
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business 
hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW., 
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be 
purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, International 
Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 1231 20th Street, NW, 
Washington, DC 20036.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 98-16919 Filed 6-24-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
2017-1233.

#### State ex rel. Littlepage v. Nadel.

In Prohibition. On motion to dismiss. Motion granted. Cause dismissed.

O’Connor, C.J., and O’Donnell, Kennedy, and French, JJ., concur.

O’Neill, Fischer, and DeWine, JJ., not participating.
# Employee Spotlight: Diane Hernandez

/ Published Feb. 7, 2024
RICHMOND, Va., 
**Name:** Diane Hernandez

**Organization:** DLA Aviation at Oklahoma City

**Years of service:** Four years

**What is your job title and what do you do specifically?**I am a customer service specialist. My job is to assist the customer in obtaining material to resolve their back orders. I keep the customer and command staff updated on the status of the material and what is being done to mitigate the back order. This requires researching a contract thoroughly, seeking lateral materiel from another depot, or requesting an emergency/organic manufacture buy.

**What do you like most about your job and why?**I’ve been blessed to work with some of the best people who can make you laugh all day, or who would sit and listen to whatever you had to say. Many have felt more like family.

**What aspect(s) of your current job gives you the most personal satisfaction?**I get a lot of satisfaction at my job when we’re working as a team. In all areas I’ve worked in, people will jump in and help if someone needs assistance. They make sure no one is left feeling stressed about their tasks or just trying to figure it out on their own.

**What are your best practices for achieving goals or accomplishing tasks?**My best practice in achieving tasks is to stay organized. Mess and chaos can leave you struggling to figure out what you need to do next. I try to think of each goal or task as a steppingstone and worry about one thing at a time.

**What are some of your passions outside of work?**One of my greatest passions outside of work is art because of how creative it allows you to be. I love painting and crafting tumblers for friends and family members as gifts that I can tailor for each person. Crafted gifts are my favorite ones to give because it’s something you put thought, time and effort into. I have also been trying to learn how to play guitar from my son.

**If you had a theme song, what would it be and why?**My theme song would be “Lean On Me” by Bill Withers. Not only do I love that song, I try and be there for everyone, especially my kids. I want them to know when they are not feeling strong, I will be there - so they can lean on me!

**Who is the most influential person in your life...past or present and why**?  The most influential person in my life has been my maternal grandmother. She was more like a second mother to me and the kind of person I wanted to grow up to be.
#### People v Kelly

4th Dept: 145 AD3d 1431 (Cayuga)

denied 3/2/17 (Rivera, J.)
# C_2013260EN.01002102.xml

| 7.9.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 260/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.9.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 260/21

---

Request for a preliminary ruling from the Finanzgericht München (Germany) lodged on 29 May 2013 — Data I/O GmbH v Hauptzollamt München

(Case C-297/13)

2013/C 260/36

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Referring court

Finanzgericht München

Parties to the main proceedings

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Data I/O GmbH

Applicant:

Defendant: Hauptzollamt München

Defendant:

Question referred

Question referred

Is note 2(a) to Section XVI (1) to be interpreted as meaning that goods that fulfil the conditions both for classification as a part within the meaning of heading 8473 of the Combined Nomenclature (CN) and for classification as individual goods under another heading of Chapter 84 of the CN or a heading of Chapter 85 of the CN are to be classified under the other heading because heading 8473 of the CN does not take precedence over the other headings of Chapter 84 and the headings of Chapter 85 of the CN?

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EEC) No 2658/87 of 23 July 1987 on the tariff and statistical nomenclature and on the Common Customs Tariff (OJ 1987 L 256, p. 1); in the versions as amended by Commission Regulations (EC) Nos 2031/2001 of 6 August 2001 (OJ 2001 L 279, p. 1), 1832/2002 of 1 August 2002 (OJ 2002 L 290, p. 1), 1789/2003 of 11 September 2003 (OJ 2003 L 281, p. 1) and 1810/2004 of 7 September 2004 (OJ 2004 L 327, p. 1).

1

---
Water Quality Standards Regulatory Revisions Rulemaking

MEMORANDUM TO RECORD

SUBJECT: Meeting with Tribes Located in EPA Region 5

DATE: February 2014

TIME: 15 minutes

Participants:

EPA – Dave Pfeifer, Kathy Mayo

Tribes – Representatives from tribes located in EPA Region 5 (roll not taken)

Summary of Meeting: At the request of the tribes, EPA provided a 15-minute update on the

rulemaking, including that the comment period closed and the number of public comments

received. EPA responded to questions about next steps.

.
S91A1269.

#### COOK v. COLQUITT COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION et al.

(412 SE2d 828)

Hunt, Justice.

We granted this application for interlocutory appeal to determine the propriety of the trial court’s dismissal of the complaint against defendant Colquitt County Board of Education (Board). The trial court granted the Board’s motion to dismiss on the ground that it is not a legal entity subject to suit.

In a long line of cases, we, and the Court of Appeals, have held that a county board of education, unlike the school district which it manages, is not a body corporate and does not have the capacity to sue or be sued. See, e.g., *Smith v. Maynard,*214 Ga. 764, 769 (2) (107 SE2d 815) (1959); *Parker v. Bd. of Ed. of Sumter County,*209 Ga. 5 (2) (70 SE2d 369) (1952); *Foster v. Cobb County Bd. of Ed.,*133 Ga. App. 768 (213 SE2d 38) (1975). The only exception to this rule, not applicable here, is where the legislature creates a school board by an act which gives that board the capacity to sue or be sued. *Morman v. Board of Ed. of Richmond County,*218 Ga. 48, 49 (1) (126 SE2d 217) (1962).

The plaintiffs contend that the foregoing rule was changed by the adoption of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983, Art. I, Sec. II, Par. IX, which provides, in part, that

> [sovereign immunity extends to the state and all of its departments and agencies. However, the defense of sovereign immunity is waived as to ... those actions for the recovery of damages for any claim against the state or any of its departments and agencies for which liability insurance protection for such claims has been provided but only to the extent of *842any liability insurance provided.

Decided February 6, 1992.

*Neal Weinberg,*for appellant.

*Whelchel, Whelchel & Carlton, James C. Whelchel,*for appellees.

They argue that under our holding in *Thigpen v. McDuffie County Bd. of Ed.,*255 Ga. 59 (335 SE2d 112) (1985), interpreting this constitutional provision, a school board is now a legal entity with the capacity to sue and be sued. We disagree.

In *Thigpen,*citing *Toombs County v. O’Neal,*254 Ga. 390 (330 SE2d 95) (1985) for the proposition that a county is included within the definition of “the state and any of its departments and agencies” in the above-cited constitutional provision, we held that the defendant McDuffie County Board of Education likewise was included in that provision. However, as noted by the trial court in this case, in *Thigpen*we did not address the issue presented here. Article I, Sec. II, Par. IX of the Constitution of Georgia of 1983, and its 1990 amendment, neither create any new entities or bodies corporate, nor destroy any old ones. Rather, the constitutional provision concerns sovereign immunity and the waiver thereof for the state and its sub-parts which are otherwise subject to suit.

Accordingly, the trial court properly dismissed the complaint against the school board under the rule that school boards are not legal entities unless so authorized by legislative act.

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Bell, Benham and Fletcher, JJ., concur; Clarke, C. J., and Weltner, P. J., dissent.*
No. 09-11205.

#### Christopher Renda, Petitioner v. United States.

562 U.S. 867, 131 S. Ct. 158,

178 L. Ed. 2d 95,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6992.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit denied.

Same case below, 368 Fed. Appx. 306.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Natalya Goberman, Petitioner, v New York City Department of Corrections et al., Respondents.

[66 NYS3d 626]

Writ of habeas corpus in the nature of an application, inter alia, to release the petitioner on her own recognizance upon Queens County indictment No. 3230/13.

Adjudged that the writ is dismissed, without costs or disbursements.

The determination of the Supreme Court, Queens County, did not violate “constitutional or statutory standards” *(People ex rel. Klein v Krueger,*25 NY2d 497, 499 [1969]; *see People ex rel. Rosenthal v Wolfson,*48 NY2d 230 [1979]).

Balkin, J.P., Austin, Brathwaite Nelson and Christopher, JJ., concur.
QuickLinks
 -- Click here to rapidly navigate through this document

EXHIBIT 10.58  


 
  TRI-S SECURITY CORPORATION
  MARKET STAND-OFF AGREEMENT    
    



        WHEREAS, the undersigned ("Investor") is an investor in Tri S Security Corporation (the "Company"), having puchased shares of the capital stock of the Company or
certain notes and warrants issued by the Company, which notes and or warrants are convertible into the capital stock of the Company. 


        WHEREAS,
the Company is in negotiations with Bathgate Capital Partners LLC (the "Underwriter") as representative of various underwriters
in connection with a proposed firm commitment uderwritten public offering of Units containg shares of the Company's common stock and Redeemable Stock Purchase Warrants (the "Firm Commitment
Offering"). 


        WHEREAS,
as a condition precedent to undertaking the Firm Commitment Offering, the Underwriter has requested that Investor agree not to sell or otherwise transfer any of the securities
of the Company owned by Investor, or issuable upon conversion of the notes or warrants held by Investor, for a period of time. 


        NOW
THEREFORE, in order to induce the Underwriter to undertake the Firm Commitment Offering, if a registration statement registering the Company's securities is declared effective,
Investor agrees not to offer, sell, contract to sell, make short sales of, loan, grant any options for the purchase of, or otherwise dispose of any securities of the Company held by such Investor
without the prior written consent of the Underwriter for one year from and after the effective date of the Company's registration statement (Registration No. 333-119737) (the
"Effective Date"), without the Underwriter's prior written consent. The Underwriter agrees to release 25% of Investor's securities subject to this agreement 180 dats after the Effective Date, provided
that the closing price of Company's Common Stock on its principal trading market has equaled or exceeded $9.00 per share for 30 consecutive trading days. Investor further agrees that the Company may
impose stop transfer instructions in order to enforce the foregoing covenants. 


        Acknowledged
and agreed. 



	 	 	"Investor"

(if an individual)
	

    	
 	


	

 	
 	

Print Name:	
 	


	

 	
 	

(if an entity)
	

    	
 	

 (print entity name)
	

 	
 	

By:	
 	


	

 	
 	

Name:	
 	


	

 	
 	

Title:	
 	















QuickLinks


TRI-S SECURITY CORPORATION MARKET STAND-OFF AGREEMENT
[Federal Register Volume 63, Number 118 (Friday, June 19, 1998)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33639-33640]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 98-16300]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. ER98-2498-000]


Cobisa-Person Limited Partnership; Notice of Issuance of Order

June 15, 1998.
    Cobisa-Person Limited Partnership (Cobisa-Person), is an exempt 
wholesale generator comprised of a single general partner, Cobisa-
Person Power Company, Inc., and a single limited partner, Cobisa-Person 
Corporation. Cobisa-Person filed an application requesting that the 
Commission accept a power purchase agreement and amendment and 
authorize it to engage in wholesale power sales at market-based rates, 
and for certain waivers and authorizations. In particular, Cobisa-
Person requested that the Commission grant blanket approval under 18 
CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liabilities by Cobisa-Person. On June 12, 1998, the Commission issued 
an Order Accepting For Filing Proposed Market-Based Rates And 
Interconnection Agreement And Amendment (Order), in the above-docketed 
proceeding.
    The Commission's June 12, 1998 Order granted the request for 
blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the conditions found in 
Ordering Paragraphs (D), (E), and (G):
    (D) Within 30 days after the date of issuance of this order, any 
person desiring to be heard or to protest the Commission's blanket 
approval of issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities by 
Cobisa-Person should file a motion to intervene or protest with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure, 18 CFR 385.211 and 
385.214.
    (E) Absent a request to be heard within the period set forth in 
Ordering Paragraph (D) above, Cobisa-Person is hereby authorized to 
issue securities and assume obligations and liabilities as guarantor, 
indorser, surety or otherwise in respect of any security of another 
person; provided that such issue or assumption is for some lawful 
object within the corporate purposes of Cobisa-Person, compatible with 
the public interest, and reasonably necessary or appropriate for such 
purposes.
    (G) The Commission reserves the right to modify this order to 
require a further showing that neither public nor private interests 
will be adversely affected by continued Commission approval of

[[Page 33640]]

Cobisa-Person's issuances of securities or assumptions of liabilities * 
* *.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is July 13, 1998.
    Copies of the full text of the Order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, 
DC 20426.
David P. Boergers,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 98-16300 Filed 6-18-98; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 12-8600.

#### Garcia-Hernandez *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Certiorari denied.
#### Michael F. Hart, Appellant, v Tony DiPiazza, Respondent.

[767 NYS2d 904]

—In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Kitzes, J.), entered August 9, 2002, which upon the granting of the defendant’s motion pursuant to CPLR 4401 made at the close of the plaintiffs case to dismiss the complaint for failure to establish a prima facie case, *492is in favor of the defendant and against him dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court properly determined that the plaintiff did not make out a prima facie case. Ritter, J.P., Smith, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
No. 09-11429.

#### David P. Webster, Petitioner v. Washington.

562 U.S. 880, 131 S. Ct. 197,

178 L. Ed. 2d 118,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6812.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 3, denied.
No. 10-41.

#### Michael A. Marcavage, Petitioner v. Massachusetts.

562 U.S. 891, 131 S. Ct. 247,

178 L. Ed. 2d 138,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 6410.

October 4, 2010.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the Appeals Court of Massachusetts denied.

Same case below, 76 Mass. App. 34, 918 N.E.2d 855.
#### Joseph Douek, Respondent, v Vivian Douek, Appellant.

[48 NYS3d 614]

Appeal by the defendant from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Eric I. Prus, J.), dated November 21, 2014. The order granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

In this action for a divorce and ancillary relief, the Supreme Court granted that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial. The defendant appeals.

Pursuant to CPLR 3126, if any party “refuses to obey an order for disclosure or wilfully fails to disclose information which the court finds ought to have been disclosed . . . , the court may make such orders with regard to the failure or *867refusal as are just.” The nature and the degree of the penalty to be imposed pursuant to CPLR 3126 lies within the sound discretion of the Supreme Court *(see Raville v Elnomany,*76 AD3d 520, 521 [2010]; *Casey v Casey,*39 AD3d 579, 580 [2007]; *Green v Green,*32 AD3d 898, 899 [2006]; *Serdaroglu v Serdaroglu,*209 AD2d 606, 607 [1994]).

Contrary to the defendant’s contention, the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting that branch of the plaintiff’s motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3126 to preclude the defendant from offering financial evidence at trial due to her willful violation of discovery orders and her failure to comply with the plaintiff’s discovery requests *(see*CPLR 3126; *Raville v Elnomany,*76 AD3d 520 [2010]; *Casey v Casey,*39 AD3d 579 [2007]; *Green v Green,*32 AD3d 898 [2006]; *Serdaroglu v Serdaroglu,*209 AD2d 606 [1994]).

Chambers, J.P., Roman, LaSalle and Barros, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 10.1

                                                                  April 13, 2004


Mr. Gary Granoff
Elk Associates Funding Corp.
747 Third Avenue
New York, NY 10017

Dear Gary:

We are pleased to confirm that we hold available a line of credit for Elk
Associates Funding Corp. in the amount of $16,000,000.

Credit availability under this line is subject to the receipt of and continuing
satisfaction with current financial and other information which current
information is to be furnished by you to the Bank as we may, from time to time,
require.

The line of credit expires on May 15, 2004.

As in the past, the line of credit may be withdrawn at the Bank's sole
discretion at any time.

If you have any questions, please call me.

                                               Very truly yours,



                                               Robert J. Fainelli
                                               First Vice President


ISRAEL DISCOUNT BANK OF NEW YORK o MEMBER FDIC
511 FIFTH AVE. NEW YORK, NY 10017-4997 o TEL: (212) 551-8500
No. 09-1272.

#### Kentucky, Petitioner v. Hollis Deshaun King.

562 U.S. 1042, 131 S. Ct. 625,

2010 U.S. LEXIS 8893.

178 L. Ed. 2d 432,

November 15, 2010.

Motion of respondent to dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted denied.
Exhibit 23.1**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We haveissued our reports dated March 6, 2006, accompanying the consolidated financial statementsand schedules and management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financialreporting in the Annual Report of Dynamics Research Corporation on Form 10-K for the year endedDecember 31, 2005. We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said reports in theRegistration Statements of Dynamics Research Corporation on Form S-8 (File No. 333-109973, File No.333-59706, File No. 333-47838, File No. 333-02805, and File No. 333-68548)./s/ Grant Thornton LLP
Historical DLA Energy photos added to DLA archives
 
  By Irene Smith
                                    dla.history@dla.mil