alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
55336 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 

97232. The documents are also available 

on the Internet at www.nwr.noaa.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristine Petersen, Portland, OR, at 

phone number: (503) 230-5409, e-mail: 

Kristine.Petersen@noaa.gov 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

notice is relevant to the following 

species and evolutionarily significant 

units (ESUs): 

Steelhead (Oncorhynchus mykiss): 

endangered Upper Columbia River. 

Dated: September 15, 2005. 

Angela Somma, 

Chief, Endangered Species Division, Office 

of Protected Resources, National Marine 

Fisheries Service. 

[FR Doc. 05–18752 Filed 9– 20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3510–22–S 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Office of the Secretary 

[Transmittal No. 05–43] 

36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification 

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense 

Security Cooperation Agency. 

ACTION: Notice. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is 

publishing the unclassified text of a 

section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. 

This is published to fulfill the 

requirements of section 155 of Public 

Law 104–164 dated 21 July 19096. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

J. Hurd, DSCA/DBO/ADM, (703) 604–

6575. 

The following is a copy of a letter to 

the Speaker of the House of 

Representatives, Transmittal 05–43 with 

attached transmittal, policy justification, 

and Sensitivity of Technology. 

Dated: September 14, 2005. 

L.M. Bynum, 

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison 

Officer, Department of Defense. 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–M 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55337 


EN21SE05.000</GPH>
55338 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 


EN21SE05.001</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 55339 


EN21SE05.002</GPH>
55340 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 182 / Wednesday, September 21, 2005 / Notices 

[FR Doc. 05–18754 Filed 9–20–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 5001–06–C 


EN21SE05.003</GPH> EN21SE05.004</GPH>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 98-6704

LEE GRANT GIBBS, Petitioner - Appellant, versus THOMAS R. CORCORAN; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF MARYLAND, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Marvin J. Garbis, District Judge. (CA-97- 1393-MJG) Submitted: September 10, 1998 Decided: September 24, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Lee Grant Gibbs, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, David Jonathan Taube, Assistant Attorney General, AnnNorman Bosse, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Lee Grant Gibbs seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Gibbs v. Corcoran , No. CA-97- 1393-MJG (D. Md. Apr. 3, 1998). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented inthe materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



The undersigned, Louis L. Knickerbocker and William C. Hitchcock, certify that:



1.

We have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of R.G. Global Lifestyles, Inc.



2.

Based upon our 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 our knowledge, the financial statements, consolidated 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 officers and we are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:



a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including any subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;



5.

The registrants other certifying officers and we have disclosed, based upon our most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors or persons performing the equivalent function):



a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data, and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls; and



6.

The registrants other certifying officers and we have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.



Dated:  November 15, 2004





/s/ Louis L. Knickerbocker

Louis L. Knickerbocker, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer



/s/ William C. Hitchcock

William C. Hitchcock, Chief Financial Officer
---

---

EXHIBIT 13.2

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 Arel Communications and Software Ltd. (the
Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Daniel
Yelin, 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 to my knowledge:

|1. | the Report
  fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) 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/ DANIEL
  YELIN        | 
|--------------- | ------------------------- | 
|                |                           | 
|                | Daniel Yelin             
|June 24,
  2003 | Chief
  Financial Officer

A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities
and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.





---

---
In the Matter of D.T., D.T., D.T., D.T.

No. COA16-39.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

June 21, 2016.

**CASE REPORTED WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION**

Affirmed.
1563.

#### Logan *v.*City of Atlanta.

Certiorari, from Fulton superior court- — -Judge Pendleton. November 30, 1908.

Argued January 13,

Decided January 27, 1909.

*8. C. Crane,*for plaintiff in error.

. *J. L. Mayson, W. P. Hill, C. D. Hill,*contra.

Powell, *J.*

This case is controlled by the ruling made at the conclusion of the opinion in the case of *Smith*v. *Atlanta,*this day decided, ante, 492. *Judgment affirmed.*
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES OF  McLEODUSA INCORPORATED        (As of April 10, 2002)

|Subsidiary                                    |  | State of
Incorporation or
Organization
|--------------------------------------------- |  | --------------------------------------
|McLeodUSA Holdings, Inc                       |  | Delaware                              
|McLeodUSA Telecommunications Services, Inc.   |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Market Response, Inc.               |  | Iowa                                  
|Consolidated Market Response, Inc.            |  | Illinois                              
|McLeodUSA Telecom Development, Inc.           |  | South Dakota                          
|McLeodUSA Network Services, Inc.              |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Purchasing, L.L.C.                  |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Integrated Business Systems, Inc.   |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Public Services, Inc.               |  | Illinois                              
|McLeodUSA Information Services, Inc.          |  | Delaware                              
|McLeodUSA Community Telephone, Inc.           |  | Delaware                              
|Illinois Consolidated Telephone Company       |  | Illinois                              
|Dakota Community Telephone, Inc.              |  | South Dakota                          
|McLeodUSA Media Group, Inc.                   |  | Iowa                                  
|McLeodUSA Publishing Company                  |  | Iowa                                  
|Consolidated Communications Directories, Inc. |  | Illinois                              
|Frontier Directory Co. of Minnesota, Inc.     |  | Minnesota                             
|Frontier Directory Company of Nebraska, Inc.  |  | Nebraska                              
|J-Mar Publishing Company, Inc.                |  | Michigan                              
|Greene County Partners, Inc.                  |  | Illinois                              
|Midwest Cellular Associates                   |  | Illinois                              
|CapRock Communications Corp.                  |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Telecommunications Corp.              |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Fiber Network, Ltd.                   |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Telecommunications Leasing Corp.      |  | Texas                                 
|CapRock Design Services, L.P.                 |  | Arizona                               
|CapRock Network Services, L.P.                |  | Texas                                 
|Intelispan, Inc.                              |  | Washington                            
|Devise Associates, Inc.                       |  | New York                              

---

QuickLinks
Exhibit32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with theQuarterly Report of CPI International, Inc. (the‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the periodending December  30,  2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’), I, Joel Littman, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complieswith the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

(2) The information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of theCompany.

/s/ JoelLittman

Joel Littman Chief FinancialOfficer February 13, 2006

----
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 13, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 54070]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18044]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[AZ-912-1820-AL-241A]


Arizona State Office Public Room Temporary Closure

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of temporary office closure to the public.

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

SUMMARY: This notice announces a temporary closure of the Bureau of 
Land Management Arizona State Office Public Room for October 5-12, 
2005. The five-day closure is for the purpose of relocating the land 
and mineral records, office furniture and electronic equipment to a new 
location in the Phelps Dodge Tower at 1 North Central Avenue in 
downtown Phoenix, Arizona. The Public Room will be reopened to the 
public for regular business hours--9 a.m. to 4 p.m., starting on 
Thursday, October 13, 2005. The phone number to the Public Room, (602) 
417-9200, will remain the same in the new location.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deborah Stevens, Bureau of Land 
Management, Arizona State Office, 222 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, 
Arizona 85004-2203, (602) 417-9215.

Joan B. Losacco,
Acting Arizona State Director.
[FR Doc. 05-18044 Filed 9-12-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-32-P
**Exhibit 21.1****Subsidiaries**     The Company’s principal subsidiaries and affiliates at December 31, 2006 were as follows:       **Country of**  **Company** **incorporation** **Principal activity**Cronos Containers Limited* UK Container leasing,  management and    administrationCronos Containers N.V.* Netherlands Antilles Container investment managerCronos Capital Corp. USA General Partner and limited partnership    administration, container investment    managerCronos Securities Corp. USA Securities brokeringCronos Containers PTE Limited* Singapore Administration and marketing — SingaporeCronos Containers Pty Limited* Australia Administration and marketing — AustraliaCronos Containers S.R.L. Italy Administration and marketing — Southern    EuropeCronos Containers (Hong Kong) Hong Kong Administration and marketing — HongLimited*   Kong and AustralasiaCronos Container Leasing GmbH Germany Administration and marketing — GermanyCronos Equipment (Bermuda) Ltd* Bermuda Container investmentCronos Finance (Bermuda) Ltd* Bermuda Container investmentC G Finance B.V. Netherlands Holding company and marketing officeCronos Management N.V.* Netherlands Antilles Holding company and provision of    Executive servicesCronos Containers Scandinavia Sweden Holding company and Intermodal equipmentAB   managementIntermodal Leasing AB Sweden Intermodal equipment managementCronos Containers (Cayman)Ltd.* Cayman Islands Container investment managerCronos Holdings InvestmentsInc.* USA Holding companyCF Leasing Limited Bermuda 50% owned container investment joint    venture company * Denotes companies owned directly by the Company.
STATE of North Carolina v. Dustin Jamal WARREN.

No. 417P15.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 28, 2016.

Patrick M. Megaro, for Warren, Dustin Jamal.

Elizabeth Leonard Mckay, Special Deputy Attorney General, for State of N.C.

Scott E. Thomas, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 14th of December 2015 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

> "Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 28th of January 2016."
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Robert Sylar, Appellant.

[801 NYS2d 661]

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Monroe County (Kenneth R. Fisher, J.), rendered April 17, 2001. The judgment convicted defendant, upon a jury verdict, of sodomy in the first degree and endangering the welfare of a child.

It is hereby ordered that the judgment so appealed from be and the same hereby is unanimously affirmed.

Memorandum: Defendant appeals from a judgment convicting him upon a jury verdict of sodomy in the first degree (Penal Law former § 130.50 [3]) and endangering the welfare of a child (§ 260.10 [1]). Defendant failed to preserve for our review his challenge to the legal sufficiency of the evidence *(see People v Hines,*97 NY2d 56, 61 [2001], *rearg denied*97 NY2d 678 [2001]; *People v Williams,*17 AD3d 1043, 1045 [2005]; *People v Harrison,*2 AD3d 1454 [2003], *lv denied*2 NY3d 740 [2004]). In any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit *(see generally People v Mateo,*2 NY3d 383, 409-410 [2004], *cert denied*542 US 946 [2004]; *People v Bleakley,*69 NY2d 490, 495 [1987]). Also contrary to the contention of defendant, he was not denied effective assistance of counsel *(see generally People v Baldi,*54 NY2d 137, 147 [1981]; *People v Bailey,*17 AD3d 1022, 1022-1023 [2005]). The testimony of the victim elicited by defense counsel on cross-examination to which defendant objects was merely cumulative of her testimony on direct examination and defendant was not thereby deprived of a fair trial *(see generally People v Flores,*84 NY2d 184, 187-188 [1994]). Although defendant further contends that defense counsel should have *1398called the other children who attended the slumber party to testify at trial, it appears from the record before us that those other children were asleep throughout the incident. To the extent that defendant contends otherwise, his contention is based upon information outside the record and thus must be raised by way of a motion pursuant to CPL 440.10 (see *People v Jackson, 4*AD3d 773, 774 [2004], *lv denied 2*NY3d 801 [2004]; *People v Nicholson,*269 AD2d 868, 869 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 907 [2000]).

We further reject defendant’s contention that Supreme Court erred in refusing to give an adverse inference charge regarding the discarded rape kit. “In the absence of bad faith, the People’s failure to ‘preserve evidentiary material of which no more can be said than that it could have been tested and the result may have helped defendant does not violate the *Brady*rule’ ” *(People v Bridges,*184 AD2d 1042, 1042 [1992], *lv denied*80 NY2d 973 [1992]; *see People v Close,*103 AD2d 970, 971 [1984]). Finally, defendant failed to preserve for our review his contention that the court’s interested witness charge was improper *(see generally*CPL 470.05 [2]; *People v Highsmith,*254 AD2d 768, 769 [1998], *lv denied*92 NY2d 983, 1033 [1998]) and, in any event, defendant’s contention lacks merit. Present—Pigott, Jr., P.J., Green, Gorski, Smith and Lawton, JJ.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

August 29, 2008

Mr. Brian Edward Staley

Hull & Associates, P.C.

6200 Savoy,  Suite 440

Houston, TX 77036

Mr. Kenneth F. Weaver

131 Parkhaven Dr.

Waco, TX 76712

RE:Case Number:  07-0682

Court of Appeals Number:  10-06-00207-CV

Trial Court Number:  20051532CV2

Style:UNIFUND CCR PARTNERS

v.

KENNETH F. WEAVER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed per curiam opinion and judgment in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 07-0682Page 1**
# C_2008223EN.01001801.xml

| 30.8.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 223/18 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.8.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 223/18

---

Judgment of the Court (Eighth Chamber) of 17 July 2008 — Commission of the European Communities v Kingdom of Belgium

(Case C-543/07) (1)

1

(Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations - Directive 2002/73/EC - Equal treatment for men and women - Access to employment - Vocational training and promotion - Working conditions - Failure to transpose within the period prescribed)

(2008/C 223/28)

Language of the case: Dutch

Parties

Applicant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: M. van Beek, acting as Agent)

Applicant:

Defendant: Kingdom of Belgium (represented by: D. Haven, Agent)

Defendant:

Re:

Failure of a Member State to fulfil its obligations — Failure to adopt, within the period prescribed, the provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions (OJ 2002 L 296, p. 15).

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that, by failing, within the period prescribed, to adopt the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with Directive 2002/73/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 September 2002 amending Council Directive 76/207/EEC on the implementation of the principle of equal treatment for men and women as regards access to employment, vocational training and promotion, and working conditions, the Kingdom of Belgium failed to fulfil its obligations under that directive;

| 2. | Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders the Kingdom of Belgium to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---