alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 95 (Wednesday, May 17, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26455-26456]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-12032]



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


DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


General Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement for 
Sitka National Historical Park, Sitka, Alaska

ACTION: Notice of intent.

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

SUMMARY: The National Park Service (NPS) is preparing a general 
management plan (GMP) and accompanying environmental impact statement 
(EIS) for Sitka National Historical Park. Although the oldest National 
Park System unit in Alaska, a GMP has never been prepared for Sitka 
National Historical Park. The purpose of the EIS is to evaluate the 
impacts of alternative development and management scenarios proposed 
for the park in the GMP.
    The NPS Gateway Community Planning Initiative selected this GMP/EIS 
as a pilot project. The initiative is designed to more directly involve 
communities in planning decisions for National Park System units with 
close geographic, historic, or cultural ties to the affected 
communities. Sitka National Historical Park lies entirely within the 
municipality of Sitka, Alaska.
    Three public scoping meetings are scheduled to identify management 
issues for the park. These will be held on: Tuesday, June 6, 1995 at 7 
pm in the auditorium of the Alaska Public Lands Information Center, 
Anchorage, Alaska; Wednesday, June 7, 1995 at 7 pm in the Hammond Room 
of Centennial Hall, Juneau, Alaska; and Friday, June 9, 1995 at 7 pm in 
the Park Visitor Center, Sitka National Historical Park, Sitka, Alaska.
    The environmental impact statement will be prepared in accordance 
with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, 
as amended (42 U.S.C. 4331 et seq.) and its implementing regulations at 
40 CFR Part 1500. The NPS will prepare the EIS in conjunction with 
preparation of the GMP for Sitka National Historical Park.
    Interested groups, organizations, individuals and government 
agencies are invited to comment on the plan at any time. The draft 
statement is anticipated to be available for public review in the 
summer of 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Linquist, National Park Service, Alaska Regional Office, Division 
of Planning and Design, 2525 Gambell St., Room 107, Anchorage, Alaska 
99503-2892. Telephone (907) 257-2465

      or

Kevin Percival, Planning Team Captain, National Park Service, Denver 
Service Center, Team West, P.O. Box 25287, Denver, Colorado 80225-0287. 
Telephone (303) 969-2265

      or

Gary Gauthier, Park Superintendent, Sitka National Historical Park, 
P.O. Box 738, Sitka, Alaska, 99835. Telephone (907) 747-6281

    [[Page 26456]] Dated: May 5, 1995.
Paul R. Anderson,
Deputy Regional Director, Alaska Region.
[FR Doc. 95-12032 Filed 5-16-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-P
Lewis J. WHITE, petitioner, v. Ray HOBBS, Director, Arkansas Department of Correction.

No. 12-8934.

Supreme Court of the United States

April 15, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit denied.
[Cite as In re A.R.R., 130 Ohio St.3d 261, 2011-Ohio-5346.] 

IN RE A.R.R. 

[Cite as In re A.R.R., 130 Ohio St.3d 261, 2011-Ohio-5346.] 

Cause remanded for application of State v. Williams. 

(No. 2011-1027—Submitted September 20, 2011—Decided October 20, 2011.) 

APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ross County, No. 10CA3159, 

2011-Ohio-1186. 

_________________ 

{¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. 

{¶ 2} The cause is remanded for application of State v. Williams, 129 

Ohio St.3d 344, 2011-Ohio-3374, 952 N.E.2d 1108. 

O’CONNOR, C.J., and PFEIFER, LUNDBERG STRATTON, LANZINGER, CUPP, 

and MCGEE BROWN, JJ., concur. 

O’DONNELL, J., dissents. 

__________________ 

 Michael M. Ater, Ross County Prosecuting Attorney, and Robert C. Hess, 

Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellee. 

Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Amanda J. Powell, Assistant 

Public Defender, for appellant. 

______________________
Amendment to the Handleman Company 2001 Stock Option and Incentive Plan



 Exhibit 10.1 
  
 AMENDMENT TO HANDLEMAN COMPANY 2001 STOCK 
 OPTION AND INCENTIVE PLAN 
  
 The Handleman
Company 2001 Stock Option and Incentive Plan is amended, effective as of the date hereof, by replacing the existing Paragraph 16 in its entirety with the following: 
  
 If the employment of a Participant by the Corporation or a Subsidiary shall be terminated (or an outside
director’s service as a director shall terminate), the Committee may, in its discretion, permit the exercise of stock options granted to such Participant (a) for a period not to exceed three months following such termination of employment (or
one year following termination of employment on account of the Participant’s death or permanent disability) with respect to Incentive Options, and (b) for a period not to extend beyond the expiration date with respect to Nonqualified Options.
In no event, however, shall a stock option be exercisable subsequent to its expiration date. A stock option may only be exercised after termination of a Participant’s employment (or of an outside director’s service as a director) to the
extent exercisable on the date of termination of employment (or termination of service as an outside director); provided, however, that if the termination of a Participant’s employment (or of an outside director’s service as a director) is
due to the Participant’s death or permanent disability, all stock options granted to such Participant shall thereupon become exercisable in full; and provided further, that if the termination of a Participant’s employment (or of an outside
director’s service as a director) is due to the Participant’s retirement at a retirement age permitted under the Corporation’s retirement plan, the Committee may, in its discretion, permit the Participant’s stock options to
become exercisable following the termination of employment or service as a director in accordance with the provisions established at the time of grant in the relevant stock option agreement or agreements. 
  
 As adopted by the Board of Directors on February 24, 2004.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THE SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE NINE MONTH PERIOD
ENDED DECEMBER 30, 1995, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE
TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-30-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-30-1995
<CASH>                                       2,128,775
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  5,344,525
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             8,026,634
<PP&E>                                       5,204,698
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,971,735
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              10,408,343
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        6,495,478
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    500,000
<COMMON>                                       201,079
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,803,756
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                10,408,343
<SALES>                                     18,911,992
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            18,911,992
<CGS>                                       12,194,083
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               12,194,083
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             7,984,720
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              84,875
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,340,442)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,340,442)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,340,442)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.07)
        

</TABLE>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

Robert N. Trgovich, Clerk www.innd.uscourts.gov

RECORD TRANSMITTAL LETTER

Gino J. Agnello, Clerk

United States Court of Appeals, 7th Circuit

219 South Dearborn Street, Room 2722

Chicago, IL 60604

Re:

District Court Docket #

U.S. Court of Appeals #

Dear Mr. Agnello:

I am sending you herewith the

following:

Volume(s) of Pleadings

Volume(s) of Transcripts

Volume(s) of State Court Records 

Volume(s) of Depositions

Exhibits: 

Impounded Documents/PSI Reports: 

Other (specify):

Please acknowledge receipt of the above-listed materials on the attached copy of this

letter.

Sincerely,

ROBERT N. TRGOVICH, CLERK

By:

 Deputy Clerk

Date Received:__________________ By:__________________________ 

1108 E. Ross Adair Federal Bldg. • 1300 S. Harrison Street • Fort Wayne, Indiana 46802 • (260) 423-3000 • Fax (260) 423-3007

5400 Federal Plaza • Suite 2300 • Hammond, Indiana 46320 • (219) 852-6500 • Fax (219) 852-6509

102 Robert A. Grant Federal Bldg. • 204 South Main Street • South Bend, Indiana 46601 • (574) 246-8000 • Fax (574) 246-8002

214 Charles Halleck Federal Bldg. • 230 North Fourth Street • P.O. Box 1498 • Lafayette, Indiana 47902 • (765) 420-6250 • Fax (765) 420-6273

2:13-cv-491

14-3752, 15-1040

Original Record on Appeal. It consists of the

1

/s/MCiric

Reply to: Hammond Office

Holland v Feinberg et al

January 22, 2015

USDC IN/ND case 2:13-cv-00491-RL-JEM document 132 filed 01/22/15 page 1 of 1
---

EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Osprey Ventures, Inc.
  (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2010, as filed
  with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Annual
  Report), I, JMa Cheng Ji, 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 Annual 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 Annual Report fairly
      presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
      operations of the Company.

Date: August 12, 2010

/s/       Ma Cheng Ji

Ma Cheng Ji Chief Financial
Officer

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

FORT WAYNE DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

)

v. ) CASE NO.: 1:14-CR-18-TLS 

)

DARWIN ALTAMIRANO )

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION

This matter is before the Court on the Findings and Recommendation of the United States

Magistrate Judge [ECF No. 12], filed on April 18, 2014. The Defendant has waived objection to the

Findings and Recommendation, and the Court, being duly advised, adopts the Findings and

Recommendation [ECF No. 12] in its entirety and accepts the recommended disposition. Subject to

this Court’s consideration of the Plea Agreement pursuant to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure

11(c), the plea of guilty to the offense charged in Count 1 of the Information is hereby accepted, and

the Defendant is adjudged guilty of such offense. 

The notice of sentencing and pre-sentence scheduling deadlines will be issued by separate

order.

SO ORDERED on May 8, 2014.

 s/ Theresa L. Springmann 

THERESA L. SPRINGMANN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 1470

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide a tax credit to 

individuals who make contributions to finance the non-Federal share 

of projects of the Army Corps of Engineers. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

APRIL 5, 2005

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Ways and Means 

A BILL

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide 

a tax credit to individuals who make contributions to 

finance the non-Federal share of projects of the Army 

Corps of Engineers.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. CREDIT FOR CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NON-FED4 ERAL SHARE OF ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 

5 PROJECTS. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subpart B of part IV of sub7 chapter A of chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 
2

•HR 1470 IH 

1 1986 (relating to other credits) is amended by inserting 

2 after section 30A the following new section: 

3 ‘‘SEC. 30B. CONTRIBUTIONS FOR NON-FEDERAL SHARE OF 

4 ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECTS. 

5 ‘‘(a) IN GENERAL.—There shall be allowed as a cred6 it against the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable 

7 year an amount equal to the aggregate Army Corps of En8 gineers project contributions made by the taxpayer during 

9 such taxable year. 

10 ‘‘(b) ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS PROJECT CON11 TRIBUTION.—For purposes of this section, the term ‘Army 

12 Corps of Engineers project contribution’ means any 

13 amount paid or incurred to any Federal, State, or local 

14 government, or instrumentality thereof, for the non-Fed15 eral share of any water resources project carried out by 

16 the Secretary of the Army acting through the Chief of En17 gineers. 

18 ‘‘(c) DENIAL OF DOUBLE BENEFIT.—No amount 

19 taken into account under this section shall be taken into 

20 account in determining any other credit or deduction 

21 under this chapter. 

22 ‘‘(d) APPLICATION WITH OTHER CREDITS.—The 

23 credit allowed by this section shall not exceed the sum of—
3

•HR 1470 IH 

1 ‘‘(1) the regular tax for the taxable year re2 duced by the sum of the credits allowed under this 

3 part (other than this section), and 

4 ‘‘(2) the tentative minimum tax for the taxable 

5 year.’’. 

6 (b) CLERICAL AMENDMENT.—The table of sections 

7 of such subpart is amended by inserting after the item 

8 relating to section 30A the following new item:

‘‘Sec. 30B. Contributions for non-Federal share of Army Corps of Engineers 

projects.’’.

9 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

10 this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after 

11 the date of the enactment of this Act in taxable years end12 ing after such date.

Æ
BULLDOG INVESTORS GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, petitioner, v. Deborah DONOGHUE, et al.

No. 12-818.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 20, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D 20 2 3

- 1722 Lower Tribunal No. 2021CT

- 004877

- BA

_____________________________ J AVARES T AWANN B LACK , Appellant ,

v.
S TATE OF F LORIDA , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the C ounty Court for Polk County

. Robert E. Griffin , Judge.

Au gust 6, 2024

PER CURIAM

.
AFFIRMED

. STARGEL, NARDELLA and MIZE , JJ., c oncur.

Howard L. “Rex” Dimmig, II, Public Defender, and Stephania A. Valantasis, Assistant Public Defender, Bartow , for Appellant

. Javares Tawann Black, Tampa, pro se

. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Helene S. Parnes, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee

.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
Romilus CARAWAY, petitioner, v. UNITED STATES.

No. 12-10461.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit denied.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DANIEL INDA,

Plaintiff,

v.

ECHOSPHERE, LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 17-cv-00861-JD 

ORDER CONDITIONALLY 

DISMISSING CASE

The Court is advised that the parties have settled. Dkt. No. 27. Consequently, the Court 

vacates all pretrial deadlines and dismisses this case without prejudice. If any party certifies to the 

Court within 60 days from the date of this order that the agreed consideration for the settlement of 

this action has not been delivered, this order will be vacated and the case will be set for a case 

management conference. If no certification is filed, the dismissal will be deemed to be with 

prejudice after 60 days. 

The parties are directed not to ask the Court for a “dismissal with prejudice” at any 

time after this order, or to ask for an order confirming dismissal under FRCP 41(a)(1). No 

Court order is necessary for dismissal under that rule.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 13, 2017

________________________

JAMES DONATO

United States District Judge
Exhibit 32.1




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 Annual Report of NRDC Acquisition Corp. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2008 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Richard
A. Baker, Chief Executive 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 operation of the Company.






Date: May 28, 2009
                  By:
                  /s/ RICHARD
      A. BAKERRichard
      A. BakerChief
      Executive Officer(Principal
      Executive Officer)


The
foregoing certification is being furnished as an exhibit to the Report pursuant
to Item 601(b) of Regulation S-K and Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code) and, accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Report for
purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and
is not incorporated by reference into any filings of the Company, whether made
before or after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation
language in such filing.
Deborah BUSH, petitioner, v. STEVENSON COMMONS ASSOCIATES, LLP, et al.

No. 12-9893.

Supreme Court of the United States

June 24, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit denied.
#### Randy J. COMEAUX, Plaintiff—Appellee, v. TEX-AIR HELICOPTERS, INC., et al, Defendants. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc.; United States Aviation Underwriters Insurance Co., on behalf of U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group, Defendants—Appellees, v. Eurocopter S A S; American Eurocopter Corp.; La Reunion Aerienne, Defendants—Appellants. Tex-Air Helicopters, Inc., As manager, on behalf of U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group; United States Aviation Underwriters, Inc., As manager, on behalf of U.S. Aircraft Insurance Group, Plaintiffs—Appellees, v. Eurocopter S A S; et al Defendants, *959Eurocopter S A S; American Eurocopter Corp.; La Reunion Aerienne, Defendants—Appellants.

No. 03-30892.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

May 17, 2004.

Joseph R. Joy, III, Lafayette, LA, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Kenneth H. Laborde, Gieger, Laborde & Laperouse, New Orleans, LA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Michael Vance Powell, William Scott Hastings, Locke, Liddell & Sapp, Dallas, TX, Stephen C. Johnson, Kyle B. Levine, Nixon *&*Peabody, San Francisco, CA, for Defendants-Appellants.

Before DAVIS, PRADO and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

We affirm the judgment of the district court because Rule 60(b)(4) F.R.C.P. is not an appropriate vehicle for Eurocopter and AEC to challenge the sanctions order for the following reasons:

1. Appellants have not demonstrated why the proper vehicle for challenging the sanctions order was not a direct appeal from the final judgment. While Rule 60(b)(4) may relieve a party who demonstrates one of the six bases for relief under the rule, it may not be used as a substitute for appeal. See *Gary v. Louisiana,*622 F.2d 804 (5th Cir.1980).

2. Also, appellants’s reliance on Rule 60(b)(4) to challenge the district court’s sanctions order does not comport with the purpose of the rule. Rule 60(b)(4) is intended to strike a balance between preserving the finality of a judgment and insuring that justice was done. See *Williams v. New Orleans Public Service,*728 F.2d 730, 733 (5th Cir.1984). Because appellants elected to submit to the judgment of dismissal by agreeing to a settlement without reserving their right to appeal the sanctions order, application of Rule 60(b) in this instance would result in unnecessary disruption of the district court’s final judgment. A balancing of the equities in this case falls in favor of preserving the finality of the judgment.

The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

AFFIRMED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Eric JOHNSON, petitioner, v. Connie GIPSON, Warden.

No. 12-9447.

Supreme Court of the United States

May 28, 2013.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

SOUTH BEND DIVISION

APRIL MILEWSKI, As Personal Representative Case No.: 3:14-cv-01496-RL-JEM

of the ESTATE OF FREDERICK MILEWSKI,

Plaintiff,

-vUNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Defendant.

STIPULATION TO DISMISS

The parties, by counsel, and pursuant to Trial Rule 41(A)(1)(b), hereby stipulate to the dismissal of

Defendant, United States of America, with prejudice, and with each party bearing its own cost.

Attorney for Plaintiff:

_/s/ Michael P. Misch___________________

Michael P. Misch (#27970-71)

ANDERSON AGOSTINO & KELLER, P.C.

131 South Taylor Street

South Bend, IN 46601

Telephone: (574) 288-1510

Attorney for Defendant:

 /s/ Deborah M. Leonard _

Deborah M. Leonard (_______________)

E. Ross Adair Federal Building

1300 South Harrison Street, Room 3128

Fort Wayne, IN 46802

USDC IN/ND case 3:14-cv-01496-RL-JEM document 11 filed 12/10/14 page 1 of 1