alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 179 (Friday, September 16, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18458]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-920-1310-01; WYW131795]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW131795 from Encana 
Energy Resources, Inc. for lands in Sweetwater County, Wyoming. The 
petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the rentals due 
since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Pamela J. 
Lewis, Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10 per acre or fraction 
thereof, per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $166 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Section 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW131795 effective April 1, 2004, under the original 
terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty 
rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting the 
lands.

Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. 05-18458 Filed 9-15-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
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 Quarterly Report of Captaris, Inc. (the Company) on
Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, David P. Anastasi, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (1) | The Form 10-Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ DAVID P. ANASTASI                                                 
|David P. Anastasi President and Chief
Executive Officer August 6, 2007
1)
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of LaCrosse Footwear, Inc. (the registrant);2)
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to
state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such
statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;3)
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report,
fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of
the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;4)
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal
control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the
registrant and have:
 a)
    
    Designed such disclosure
controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls
and procedures to be designed
under our supervision, to
ensure that material
information relating to the
registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others
within those entities,
particularly during the period
in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Designed such internal control
over financial reporting, or
caused such internal control
over financial reporting to be
designed under our supervision,
to provide reasonable assurance
regarding the reliability of
financial reporting and the
preparation of financial
statements for external
purposes in accordance with
generally accepted accounting
principles;c)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of
the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and
presented in this report our
conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure
controls and procedures, as of
the end of the period covered
by this report based on such
evaluation; andd)
    
    Disclosed in this report any
change in the registrants
internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during
the registrants most recent
fiscal quarter (the
registrants fourth fiscal
quarter in the case of an
annual report) that has
materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially
affect, the registrants
internal control over financial
reporting.
  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
  /s/ Joseph P. SchneiderJoseph P. SchneiderPresident and Chief Executive Officer
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


ENDORSEMENT TO 10% SENIOR SECURED CONVERTIBLE NOTE


 


Precision Optics Corporation, Inc.

New York, New York

November 30, 2010


 


The
10% Senior Secured Convertible Note dated June 25, 2008 and amended
December 11, 2008, June 25, 2010, July 26, 2010, September 15,
2010, October 15, 2010 and November 15, 2010 (the “Note”) of
Precision Optics Corporation, Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”),
payable to the order of Special Situations Private Equity Fund, L.P. (the “Holder”)
in an aggregate principal amount of $275,000 and to which the Endorsement is
affixed is hereby amended in the following respects:


 


1.                                      The term “Stated
Maturity Date” is hereby restated to be “December 1, 2010.”


 


2.                                      Except as
expressly amended by this Endorsement, the Note remains in full force and
effect and the Company hereby reconfirms its obligations thereunder.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company has caused this Endorsement to be duly executed,
and the Holder has caused this Endorsement to be duly accepted, by their respective
duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first above written.


 


 


	
   

  	
  PRECISION
  OPTICS CORPORATION, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/
  Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Name:
  Richard E. Forkey

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Title:
  Chief Executive Officer

  



 


	
  Accepted:

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  SPECIAL
  SITUATIONS PRIVATE EQUITY FUND, L.P.

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
  By:

  	
  /s/
  Adam Stettner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Name:
  Adam Stettner

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  Title:
  General Partner
STATE v. Oakland McCULLOCH.

No. 24P16-1.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 21, 2016.

Bruce T. Cunningham, Jr., Southern Pines, for McCulloch, Oakland.

Ryan Christopher Zellar, for State of North Carolina.

Kathleen N. Bolton, Assistant Attorney General, for State of North Carolina.

William R. West, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 21st of January 2016 by State of N.C. for Temporary Stay:

> "Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 21st of January 2016."
STATE v. Derrick D. BOGER.

No. 158P06-3.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

February 5, 2009.

Kathleen U. Baldwin, Catherine F. Jordan, Assistant Attorney Generals, Roxann Vaneekhoven, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 9th day of September 2008 by Defendant for Discretionary Review:

"Motion Dismissed by order of the Court in conference this the 5th day of February 2009."
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 368 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 368

 To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an audiometric test 
of each member of the Armed Forces before the separation of the member.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 23, 2013

 Mr. Benishek introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Armed Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend title 10, United States Code, to require an audiometric test 
of each member of the Armed Forces before the separation of the member.

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

SECTION 1. AUDIOMETRIC TEST REQUIRED BEFORE SEPARATION OF MEMBERS OF 
              THE ARMED FORCES.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 59 of title 10, United States Code, is 
amended by adding at the end the following new section:
``Sec. 1179. Audiometric test required
    ``Under regulations prescribed by the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of a military department shall ensure that a member of the 
armed forces under the jurisdiction of the Secretary receives an 
audiometric test at the 8000 Hz frequency (or other test that the 
Secretary of Defense determines has the ability to discover potential 
future hearing loss) to evaluate the hearing of the member during the 
90-day period before the date on which the member is discharged, 
separated, or retired.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections at the beginning of 
such chapter is amended by adding after the item relating to section 
1178 the following new item:

``1179. Audiometric test required.''.
    (c) Effective Date.--Section 1179 of title 10, United States Code, 
as added by subsection (a), shall apply with respect to a member being 
discharged, separated, or retired from the Armed Forces on or after the 
date that is 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
LEARN2.COM,INC. ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE PERIOD ENDED DECEMBER 31,
1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999             DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                           7,228                  11,313
<SECURITIES>                                         0                       0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,152                     174
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,493                       1
<INVENTORY>                                        797                       0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,628                  11,854
<PP&E>                                           4,547                   1,478
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,605                   3,073
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  75,625                  13,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            8,487                   3,248
<BONDS>                                              0                       0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0                       0
<PREFERRED>                                          0                     629
<COMMON>                                           517                     252
<OTHER-SE>                                     192,013                  94,592
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    75,625                  13,419
<SALES>                                         13,567                   2,674
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                13,567                   2,674
<CGS>                                            3,224                     472
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   54,693                  10,611
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 (283)                 (1,277)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (31)                 (1,732)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0                       0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0                       0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,036)                (16,428)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0                       0
<CHANGES>                                            0                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,036)                (16,428)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (1.06)                  (0.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.06)                  (0.92)


</TABLE>
State of North Carolina v. Matthew Devon Fields

No. COA15-1086

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: September 6, 2016

NO PLAIN ERROR.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . 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 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-20403 Summary Calendar

JOHNNIE MAE JONES; HARVELLA JONES, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

versus SHEARN SMITH, (State District Court No. 61st); DAVID WEST, (State District Court No. 269th), JEFFREY H. EWALT, Esq.; DAVID B. DICKINSON, Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas USDC No. H-96-CV-4368

- - - - - - - - - - May 4, 1998 Before WIENER, BARKSDALE and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Johnnie and Harvella Jones (the “Joneses”) request permission to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal from the district court’s dismissal of their civil rights lawsuit against the defendants. The Joneses contend that the district court did not lack subject-matter jurisdiction to consider their 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims.No. 97-20403 - 2 -

The Joneses’ § 1983 claims are “inextricably intertwined” with a state judgment, and the district court was “in essence being called upon to review the state-court decision.” See United States v. Shepherd , 23 F.3d 923, 924 (5th Cir. 1994). Federal courts lack jurisdiction to engage in appellate review of state court determinations. District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman , 460 U.S. 462, 476, 482 (1983); Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co. , 263 U.S. 413, 415 (1923). The Joneses have failed to show that they will present a nonfrivolous issue on appeal. See Carson v. Polley , 689 F.2d 562, 586 (5th Cir. 1982). Accordingly, permission to proceed IFP is DENIED and the appeal is DISMISSED. See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2. We caution the Joneses that any additional frivolous appeals filed by them will invite the imposition of sanctions. To avoid sanctions, the Joneses are further cautioned to review any pending appeals to ensure that they do not raise arguments that are frivolous.
MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED; SANCTION WARNING ISSUED.
# C_2008285EN.01003203.xml

| 8.11.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 285/32 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.11.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 285/32

---

Order of the President of the Eighth Chamber of the Court of 8 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Sweden

(Case C-419/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 285/55)

Language of the case: Swedish

Language of the case: Swedish

The President of the Eighth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 283, 24.11.2007.

1

---
JUDGMENT OF THE CIVIL SERVICE TRIBUNAL (Second Chamber)

11 December 2008

Case F-83/06

**Arno Schell**

**v**

**Commission of the European Communities**

(Civil service – Officials – Promotion – Priority points – General implementing provisions for Article 45 of the Staff Regulations)

**Application:**brought under Articles 236 EC and 152 EA, in which Mr Schell seeks, primarily, annulment of the lists of officials promoted
to grade B*8 in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years, in so far as those lists do not contain his name, together with the measures
paving the way for those decisions, and, in the alternative, annulment of the decisions fixing the total number of promotion
points in the 2004 and 2005 promotion years.

**Held:**The action is dismissed. Each party is to bear its own costs.

**Summary**

*Officials – Actions – Prior administrative complaint – Promotion system established by the Commission – Complaint against
the list of officials promoted and against the determination of the points allocated to officials – Decision to reject – Statement
of reasons*

*(Staff Regulations, Arts 25, second para., 45 and 90(2))*

Under the promotion system established by an internal regulation of the Commission, in which the promotion exercise culminates
in an act comprising two separate decisions by the appointing authority, the one adopting the list of promoted officials and
the other fixing the total number of points of officials, neither of those two decisions is supposed to include a statement
of reasons. The obligation to state reasons is satisfied where the appointing authority states reasons for its decision rejecting
a complaint against those decisions lodged under Article 90(2) of the Staff Regulations.

In that respect, since promotion is by selection, the appointing authority is not required to disclose to the unsuccessful
candidate details of its comparison of his merits and those of the candidate who is promoted. Consequently, it is enough to
satisfy the obligation to state reasons that the reply to the complaint mentions how the conditions governing promotion laid
down by law and the Staff Regulations have been applied in the official’s individual situation.

(see paras 89, 91)

See:

C-343/87 *Culin* v *Commission* [1990] ECR I‐225, para. 13

T-11/91 *Schloh* v *Council* [1992] ECR II‐203, paras 73, 85 and 86; T-6/96 *Contargyris* v *Council* [1997] ECR-SC I‐A‐119 and II‐357, paras 147 and 148; T-230/99 *McAuley* v *Council* [2001] ECR-SC I‐A‐127 and II‐583, paras 50 to 52; T-218/02 *Napoli Buzzanca* v *Commission* [2005] ECR-SC I‐A‐267 and II‐1221, para. 59; T‐311/04 *Buendía Sierra* v *Commission* [2006] ECR II‐4137, para. 147
<PAGE>   1
                                                                   EXHIBIT 11.1

                      RENAL CARE GROUP, INC. (OF DELAWARE)

                      COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                              December 31, 1996
                                                              -----------------
    <S>                                                           <C>
    PRIMARY EARNINGS PER SHARE
         Common Stock issued to Founders                            4,431,000
         Common Stock issued to Public                              4,269,000
         Common Stock issued to acquired entities                   3,070,000
                                                                  -----------

    Common Stock outstanding                                       11,770,000
    Treasury Stock Method of Options and Warrants                     969,000
                                                                  -----------

    Average weighted shares outstanding                            12,739,000
                                                                  ===========

    Net Income                                                    $10,746,000
                                                                  ===========

    Earnings Per Share                                            $      0.84
                                                                  ===========
</TABLE>
# C_2008209EN.01003804.xml

| 15.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 209/38 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

15.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 209/38

---

Order of the President of the Court of 5 June 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Grand-Duchy of Luxembourg

(Case C-511/07) (1)

1

(2008/C 209/63)

Language of the case: French

Language of the case: French

The President of the Court has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 22, 26.1.2008.

1

---