alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 22619]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-11287]


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

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Proposal Review; Notice of Meetings

    In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-
463, as amended), the National Science Foundation (NSF) announces its 
intent to hold proposal review meetings throughout the year. The 
purpose of these meetings is to provide advice and recommendations 
concerning proposals submitted to the NSF for financial support. The 
agenda for each of these meetings is to review and evaluate proposals 
as part of the selection process for awards. The majority of these 
meetings will take place at NSF, 4201 Wilson Blvd., Arlington, Virginia 
22230.
    All of these meetings will be closed to the public. The proposals 
being reviewed include information of a proprietary or confidential 
nature, including technical information; financial data, such as 
salaries; and personal information concerning individuals associated 
with the proposals. These matters are exempt under 5 U.S.C. 552b(c), 
(4) and (6) of the Government in the Sunshine Act. NSF will continue to 
review the agenda and merits of each meeting for overall compliance of 
the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
    These closed proposal review meetings will no longer be announced 
on an individual basis in the Federal Register. NSF intends to publish 
a notice similar to this on a quarterly basis. For an advance listing 
of the closed proposal review meetings that include the names of the 
proposal review panel and the time, date, place, and any information on 
changes, corrections, or cancellations, please visit the NSF web-site: 
www.nsf.gov/home/pubinfo/advisory.htm. This information may also be 
requested by telephoning 703/292-8182.

    Dated: May 1, 2001.
Susanne Bolton,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 01-11287 Filed 5-3-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-M
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 24 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 1 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 24 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 2 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 24 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 3 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05363-AKH Document 24 Filed 01/15/2008 Page 4 of 4
Case 1:07-cv-05742-RJH     Document 4      Filed 06/15/2007     Page 1 of 1
Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 37 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 1 of 2Case 1:07-cv-01667-AKH Document 37 Filed 03/17/2008 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1


                            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 Sybron Dental Specialties, Inc.
(the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ending September 30, 2002 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr., 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 to the best of my knowledge:

     (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/ Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.

Floyd W. Pickrell, Jr.
Chief Executive Officer
December 18, 2002
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 37 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:07-cv-04511-AKH Document 37 Filed 09/25/2007 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> US DOLLAR
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          SEP-30-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             OCT-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                       4,000,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               79,000,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                14,000,000
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                   2,112,000,000
<DEPRECIATION>                             658,000,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                           1,585,000,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0
<BONDS>                                    892,000,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     8,000,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 352,000,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>             1,585,000,000
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           435,000,000
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              301,000,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          63,000,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             71,000,000
<INCOME-TAX>                                28,000,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         43,000,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                43,000,000
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     2.78
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     2.77
        

</TABLE>
Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 13 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 13 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-01654-AKH Document 13 Filed 04/01/2008 Page 3 of 3
Filed 8/2/13 P. v. Hernandez CA4/1

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication 

or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered 

published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION ONE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

THE PEOPLE,

Plaintiff and Respondent,

v.

JOSE ANTONIO HERNANDEZ,

Defendant and Appellant.

 D062748

 (Super. Ct. No. SCD240590)

APPEAL from a judgment of the Superior Court of San Diego County, Laura Halgren, 

Judge. Affirmed.

Jill M. Klein, under appointment by the Court of Appeal, for Defendant and Appellant.

Kamala D. Harris, Attorney General, Dane R. Gillette, Chief Assistant Attorney 

General, Julie L. Garland, Assistant Attorney General, Eric A. Swenson and Kristine A. 

Gutierrez, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.

Jose Antonio Hernandez entered a negotiated guilty plea to continuous sexual abuse of a 

child under 14 (Pen. Code, § 288.5, subd. (a); count 9) and three counts of committing a lewd 

act on a child under 14 with substantial sexual conduct (Pen. Code, §§ 288, subd. (a) & 

1203.066, subd. (a)(8); counts 28, 30 & 33). The court sentenced him to a stipulated 28-year 
2

prison term: the 16-year upper term on count 9; the eight-year upper term on count 28 and two 

years each (one-third the middle term) on counts 30 and 33. The court imposed a $154 

criminal justice administration fee (booking fee) pursuant to Government Code section 

29550.1, as recommended in the probation report. Hernandez appeals, contending imposition 

of the booking fee violated his right to equal protection because Government Code section 

29550.1 does not require a finding of ability to pay, unlike the booking fees set forth in 

Government Code sections 29550 and 29550.2, and there is no rational basis for distinguishing 

Government Code section 29550.1 from the latter two sections. Alternatively, Hernandez 

contends substantial evidence does not support a finding he had the ability to pay the booking 

fee. 

Hernandez did not object in the trial court to the imposition of the booking fee. He has 

thus forfeited his right to challenge the fee on appeal. (People v. McCullough (2013) 56 

Cal.4th 589, 593.) Hernandez suggests that we exercise our discretion to consider the merits of 

the equal protection issue. (Ibid.) We decline to do so. 

DISPOSITION

The judgment is affirmed.
3

MCCONNELL, P. J.

WE CONCUR:

BENKE, J.

MCDONALD, J.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Dennis Straughter, Appellant.

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Memorandum: The suppression court properly ruled that defendant’s oral statements to the police were not in response to police questioning and that they were preceded by *Miranda*warnings. Although evidence of the station house showup should have been suppressed *(see, People v Riley,*70 NY2d 523, 530), the suppression court properly found that there was an independent source for the identification because the victim was able to observe the defendant for several minutes prior to the theft *(see, Manson v Brathwaite,*432 US 98, 110; *People v Riley, supra,*at 531; *People v Graham,*67 AD2d 172, 177). (Appeal from judgment of Erie County Court, *920Wolfgang, J. — grand larceny, second degree; burglary, third degree.) Present — Callahan, J. P., Denman, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Jeffrey Alexander, Also Known as Gregory Blake, Appellant, v Superintendent of Sing Sing Correctional Facility et al., Respondents.

In a habeas corpus proceeding, the appeal is from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County *874(Ruskin, J.), dated February 23, 1987, which dismissed the proceeding.

Ordered that the appeal is dismissed as academic, without costs or disbursements.

Jeffrey Alexander has been released from custody, and is, therefore, not entitled to the extraordinary relief of habeas corpus *(see, People ex rel. Owens v Sullivan,*128 AD2d 572; *People ex rel. Kitchen v Sullivan,*121 AD2d 415; *see also, People ex rel. Julio v Walters,*58 NY2d 881; *People ex rel. Davidson v Walters,*100 AD2d 917). Lawrence, J. P., Weinstein, Kooper and Sullivan, JJ., concur.
Hon. John Stapleton

County Attorney Floyd county Floydada, Texas

Dear Sir: OpinionNO. 0-4181 Re: Whether independent school districtmay pledge the anticipated state and county available funds for the current year as securityfor money borrowed to pay salaries of teachers and superintendents

for the current year.

We.have receivedyour letter of October 31, 1941, in which~you ask the opinion of this departmenton the above captionedquestion.

. Article 2749, Revised Civil Statutes, reads in part
as follows:

” provided,that the trustees in making contra&G ;ith teachers, shall not creaie a defi- ~:ciencydebtagainst the district."

Article 2827, Revised Civil Statutes,provides, in part as follows:

"The public free school funds shall not be expended except for the followingpurposes:

"1. The State and county available funds .~ shall be used exclusivelyfor the paymentof teachers' and superintendents* salaries,fees for taking the scholasticcensus on money borrowed on short time i and interest opay salaries of teachers and superintendents, ~whenthese salaries become due before the school funds for the current year become available; provided that no loans for the purpose of payment of teachers shall be paid outof funds other than those of the then current year.l

The Supreme Court of Texas in the case of-collier

v. Peacock, 5% S.W. 102.5,.had the followingto saysHon. John Stapleton,page 2

"But the trusteeswere not authorizedto contract any &e'Dt dkiidn -wotiti t-du3z3 -ai rt+EWwnq in the school fund of the district. In other words, they could not contractdebts in the employment of teachers to an amount greater than the school fund apportionedto that district for that scholastic

year. This limitation upon the power of the trustees in making the contractwith the teachersnecessarilylimits the payment of the debts that might be contractedto the amount. of the fund which belonged to the district for that year, and any debt contractedgreater than that would be a violation of the law and constituteno claim against the distric i .w See also First Nat. Bank of Athens v. Mxchison Independent School District, 114 S.W. (2d) 382; Trustees of Crosby IndependentSchool District v. West Disinfecting

Co., 121 S.W. (2d) 661.
Althoughyou do not so state,we assume that the loan contemplatedis a short time loan and is@t~ for an amount greater than that which the district reasnnably anticipates for the current year.

In view of the foregoingauthorities, you are respectfully

advised that the trustees of an independentschool districtmay borrow money for the payment of teachers' and superintendents'

salaries for the current year and pledge the anticipatedstate and county available school funds as security. However, any debt created in excess of the amount which the district reasonably anticipatesthat it will obtain for the currentyear would be invalid.

APPROVEDDRC 3~ 1941 /s/ Grover Sellers FIRST ASSISTANTATTORNRY GENERgL Very truly yours ATTORNEYGENERAL OFTEXAS By /s/ George W. Sparks GeorgeW. Sparks, Assistant

APPROVRD:OPINION COMMITTEE BY: BWR, CHAIRMAR
GWS:ap:wb
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Chief Executive Officer of Hypercom Corporation
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 I certify that: (i) the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
March 31, 2004 of Hypercom Corporation (the Report) fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934,
and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
Hypercom Corporation. By: /s/ C. S. AlexanderChristopher S. AlexanderChief Executive OfficerMay 7, 2004
#### UNITED STATES v. NEW YORK & P. R. S. S. CO.

(Circuit Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

December 15, 1913.)

No. 204.

In Error to the District Court of the United States for the Southern District of New York. Action at law by the United States against the New York *&*Porto Rico Steamship Company. Judgment for defendant, and the United States bring error.

Affirmed.

See, also, 206 Fed. 443.

A. S. Pratt, Asst. U. S. Atty., of New York City.

Before LACOMBE, COXE, and WARD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment affirmed in open court.
(86 South. 108)

#### Ex parte MARLER. UNITED STATES CAST IRON PIPE & FOUNDRY CO. v. MARLER.

(6 Div. 49.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

June 3, 1920.)

Certiorari to Court of Appeals."

Proceeding between L. A. Marler and the United States Cast Iron Pipe & Foundry Company. Judgment for the former was reversed on appeal by the Court of Appeals (86 South. 103), and L. A. Marler petitions for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review and revise such judgment.

Writ denied.

Harsh, Harsh & Harsh, of Birmingham, for appellant.

Having been induced to sign the release through fraud, Marley was not obliged to tender the money back in order to maintain his act. 137 Ala. 414, 34 South. 997; 170 Ala. 530, 54 South. 280; 127 Mass. 86, 34 Am. Rep. 349 ; 124 Iowa, 257, 99 N. W. 1069; 03 Mich. 690, 30 N. W. 688; 126 Cal. 560, 58 Pac. 1042 ; 34 Oye. 1073. The fact that he did not read the paper is no excuse for the fraud practice only. 137 Ala. 414, 34 South. 997; 104 Ala. 503, 16 South. 522, 53 Am. St. Rep. 77; 100 Ala. 132, 14 South. 746; 117 Ala. 263, 22 South. 975; 81 Ala. 255, 1 South. 212.

Coleman & Coleman and Spain & Fisk, of Birmingham, for appellee.

One must rescind in toto or not at all. 123 Ala. 439, 26 South. 290-. One cannot hold onto a part of a contract and avoid the other. 144 Ala. 256, 40 South. 394, 6 Ann. Cas. 804; 154 Ala. 576, 45 South. 906; 158 Ala. 470, 48 South. 546; 170 Ala. 530, 54 South. 280; 2 Ala. 181; 22 Ala. 249.

McCLELLAN, j.

Petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals to review the action of that court in reversing the judgment in the above-styled cause, reported in 86 South. 103. In the opinion of Presiding Judge Bricken, concurred in by Judge Merritt, it was held that—

> “There is no evidence as to the -exact amount that was due plaintiff for insurance, if anything was due. and there *is no*evidence as to whether the $50 that was paid plaintiff was more than the insurance or less than the insurance.”

The writ prayed for is denied — a conclusion in which ANDERSON, C. J., and Mc-OLBLLAN, SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and BROWN, JJ., concur; THOMAS, J., not sitting.

SAYRE, SOMERVILLE, GARDNER, and BROWN, JJ., express this opinion:

> “Our judgment is that in the matter of the release the dissenting opinion of' Samford, J., in the Court of Appeals, correctly states the law. However, the application of that law to the ease in hand involves an inquiry of fact, and on such questions this court will not review the Court of Appeals. It results that the application for certiorari must be denied.”

ANDERSON, C. J., and the writer entertain the view that the opinion of the Court of Appeals, by Presiding Judge Bricken, correctly interpreted and applied the principles of law as pronounced in B. R., L. & p. Co. v Jordan, 170 Ala. 530, 54 South. 280, among other decisions in that line.

Writ denied.
#### JOHN A. GOMES *v.*MASSACHUSETTS BAY INSURANCE COMPANY ET AL.

The plaintiffs petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 87 Conn. App. 416 (AC 24409), is denied.

*926
      *Matthew E. Auger*and *John J. Keleher,*in support of the petition.

*Daniel P. Scapellati,*in opposition.

Decided April 12, 2005
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the Court has determined th a t

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

_____________________

No. 98-10558

Summary Calendar

_____________________

MARK VENTURA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

RESCUE INDUSTRIES INCORPORATED,

Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2578-J

March 25, 1999

Before POLITZ, BARKSDALE, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Mark Ventura appeals the judgment as a matter of law in favor

of Rescue Industries Incorporated, following a jury verdict in

favor of Ventura on a state law retaliation claim.

Ventura, a former Rescue employee (dispatcher), claimed that,

after he reported instances of sexual harassment concerning him and

a co-worker to Rescue’s human resources manager, his co-workers and

supervisors made de rogatory comments to him, a promised wage

increase was decreased, and some of his job responsibilities were- 2 -

removed. F inally, after Ventura taped (and distributed) a coworker’s telephone conversa tion, he was terminated. Ventura

claimed that, in violation of the Texas Commission on Human Rights

Act, he was terminated in retaliation for complaining about conduct

prohibited by Title VII; and that Rescue violated his privacy by

revealing that Ventura is a homosexual.

The jury found fo r Ventura on the retaliation claim and

awarded damages of approximately $270; it did not find a violation

of privacy by Rescue. The district court then granted Rescue’s

motion for a judgment as a matter of law on the retaliation claim.

Ventura contends that he presented sufficient evidence of

retaliatory motives to support the jury’s verdict.

Judgments as a matter of law are reviewed d e novo . After

viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we

will “uphold the jury verdict unless there is no legally sufficient

evidentiary basis for a reasonable jury to find as the jury did”.

Brady v. Houston Independent Sch. Dist. , 113 F.3d 1419, 1422 (5th

Cir.), rehearing en banc denied

, 121 F.3d 706 (5th Cir. 1997)

(internal quotations omitted); see also Texas Farm Bureau v. United

States

, 53 F.3d 120, 123 (5th Cir. 1995); F ED

. R. C IV

. P. 50(a)(1).

We affirm for essentially the reasons stated by the district court.

See Ventura v. Rescue Indus., Inc.

, 3:95-CV-2578-J (N.D. Tex. Apr.

15, 1998).

AFFIRMED
Case 1:07-cv-05362-AKH Document 25-2 Filed 01/07/2008 Page 1 of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-1997
<CASH>                                         276,294
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,519,687
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                    573,452
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             2,554,900
<PP&E>                                       3,119,450
<DEPRECIATION>                               1,028,173
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               4,648,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,989,552
<BONDS>                                        744,762
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    175,000
<COMMON>                                        70,000
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,034,609
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 4,648,823
<SALES>                                      9,473,273
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,465,900
<CGS>                                        7,443,903
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,070,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             162,191
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,240,774
<INCOME-TAX>                                   315,203
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            925,571
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   925,571
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .13
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit (10)(a)

    

    

    

    

    

    

    Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm

    

    

    

    

    We consent to the reference to our firm under the caption “Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm” in
      Post-Effective Amendment No. 61 to the 1933 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 333-35784) and Amendment No. 528 to the 1940 Act Registration Statement (Form N-4 No. 811-05721), and to the use therein of our reports dated (a) March 13, 2019, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company and (b) April 16, 2019, with respect to the financial statements of Lincoln National Variable Annuity
      Account H for the registration of interests in a separate account under individual flexible payment deferred variable annuity contracts.

    

    

    

    

               /s/ Ernst & Young, LLP

    

    

    

    

    

    Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

    December 20, 2019
Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 8 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 1 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 8 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 2 of 3Case 1:07-cv-05727-PKC Document 8 Filed 08/15/2007 Page 3 of 3