alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 187 (Wednesday, September 28, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 56768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-19342]



[[Page 56768]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Office of the Secretary


Notice of Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience and 
Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits Filed Under Subpart B 
(Formerly Subpart Q) During the Week Ending September 2, 2005

    The following Applications for Certificates of Public Convenience 
and Necessity and Foreign Air Carrier Permits were filed under Subpart 
B (formerly Subpart Q) of the Department of Transportation's Procedural 
Regulations (See 14 CFR 301.201 et seq.). The due date for Answers, 
Conforming Applications, or Motions to Modify Scope are set forth below 
for each application. Following the Answer period DOT may process the 
application by expedited procedures. Such procedures may consist of the 
adoption of a show-cause order, a tentative order, or in appropriate 
cases a final order without further proceedings.

    Docket Number: OST-1999-5846.
    Date Filed: September 1, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 22, 2005.
    Description: Application of United Air Lines, Inc. to its pending 
application for renewal and amendment of its experimental certificate 
of public convenience and necessity for Route 566 (U.S.-Mexico) to 
include authority to carry persons, property and mail in foreign air 
transportation between Los Angeles and Cancun as well as authority to 
integrate this service with other services it is authorized to provide 
by exemptions and certificates of public convenience and necessity, 
pursuant to the Department's Notice dated August 23, 2005, In the 
Matter of Streamlining Regulatory Procedures for Licensing U.S. and 
Foreign Air Carriers.

    Docket Number: OST-2005-22331.
    Date Filed: August 31, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 20, 2005.
    Description: Application of American Airlines, Inc., requesting an 
exemption and a certificate of public convenience and necessity 
authorizing scheduled foreign air transportation of persons, property, 
and mail between New York (JFK) and San Jose del Cabo, Mexico.

    Docket Number: OST-2005-22390.
    Date Filed: September 2, 2005.
    Due Date for Answers, Conforming Applications, or Motion to Modify 
Scope: September 23, 2005.
    Description: Application of TUI Airlines Nederland, B.V. requesting 
a foreign air carrier permit to engage in charter air transportation of 
persons, property and mail between a point or points in the 
Netherlands, on the one hand, and a point or points in the United 
States, on the other hand, either directly or via intermediate points 
in other countries, and beyond, as authorized by the October 14, 1992 
U.S.-Netherlands ``Open Skies'' Agreement.

Renee V. Wright,
Program Manager, Docket Operations, Federal Register Liaison.
[FR Doc. 05-19342 Filed 9-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-62-P
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-10486

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

BRENSON STOVALL,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

(4:99-CR-175-1-P)

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

March 26, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Defendant-Appellant Brenson Stovall was convicted of four

counts of robbery under 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) & (b), four counts of

using and carrying a firearm during the robberies, and four counts

of brandishing a firearm during the robberies. Stovall argues that

(1) his post-arrest statements to a federal agent were involuntary

in violation of Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966), (2) the

government failed to prove jurisdiction and venue, (3) the

government failed to prove the losses associated with the robberies
2

as alleged in the indictment, and (4) the verdict of not guilty for

one of the robbery counts was inconsistent with the guilty verdict

on the other counts.

None of Stovall’s arguments have merit. Stovall voluntarily

and knowingly waived his rights before talking to federal agents.

See Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564, 577 (1987); Barnes v.

Johnson, 160 F.3d 218, 223 (5th Cir. 1998). There was sufficient

evidence establishing venue and territorial jurisdiction. See

United States v. White, 611 F.2d 531, 536 (5th Cir. 1980); United

States v. Turner, 586 F.2d 395, 397 (5th Cir. 1978). There was

trial evidence proving the losses as alleged in the indictment.

The verdict was not inconsistent, and, even if it were, that would

not warrant reversal. United States v. Straach, 987 F.2d 232, 240-

41 (5th Cir. 1993). 

AFFIRMED.
EXHIBIT 32.2

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 Quarterly Report of ICP Solar Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending
July 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Sass Peress,
Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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 result of operations of the Company.

/s/ Sass PeressSass Peress 
Principal Accounting Officer
September 18, 2009

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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. The foregoing certifications are accompanying the Company's Form 10-Q solely pursuant to 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 is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.

---
STATE of North Carolina v. Jose Luis MACIAS

No. 510P04-3

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

October 31, 2016.

Mr. Jose Luis Macias, Pro se.

*260Ms. Kimberly N. Callahan, Assistant Attorney General, Mr. Robert A. Evans, Jr., District Attorney, For State of NC.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed by Defendant on the 19th of October 2016 in this matter for a writ of mandamus, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the Superior Court, Nash County:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 31st of October 2016."

WITNESS my hand and the seal of the Supreme Court of North Carolina, this the 31st day of October 2016.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4113 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to consider projects involving rural communities in the selection of alternative water source 

projects, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Mr. MCNERNEY introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure 

A BILL 

To amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to direct 

the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to consider projects involving rural communities in 

the selection of alternative water source projects, and 

for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Community Water En5 hancement Act of 2014’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4113 IH

1 SEC. 2. ALTERNATIVE WATER SOURCE PROJECTS. 

2 (a) SELECTION OF PROJECTS.—Section 220(d) of 

3 the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 

4 1300(d)) is amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) PARTICIPATION OF RURAL COMMU6 NITIES.—In making grants under this section, the 

7 Administrator shall consider whether the project— 

8 ‘‘(A) is located in an unincorporated rural 

9 community; 

10 ‘‘(B) is located in an area that is served by 

11 a public water system with fewer than 3,000 

12 connections or is located in an area with no 

13 public water system; 

14 ‘‘(C) is located in an agricultural area with 

15 rural residences served by a public water sys16 tem or by private wells; or 

17 ‘‘(D) is not only a benefit to the rural com18 munity served by the project, but also a benefit 

19 to additional regional partners.’’. 

20 (b) DEFINITION OF ALTERNATIVE WATER

21 SOURCE.—Section 220(i)(1) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 

22 1300(i)(1)) is amended— 

23 (1) in the first sentence— 

24 (A) by striking ‘‘wastewater or’’ and in25 serting ‘‘wastewater,’’; and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
3 

•HR 4113 IH

1 (B) by inserting before the period at the 

2 end the following: ‘‘, or through conjunctively 

3 managing groundwater supplies by delivering 

4 surface water instead of groundwater’’; and 

5 (2) in the second sentence by inserting before 

6 the period at the end the following: ‘‘unless the 

7 project requires such facilities to deliver the alter8 native water supply’’. 

9 (c) AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.—Section 

10 220(j) of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1300(j)) is amended by 

11 striking ‘‘2004’’ and inserting ‘‘2018’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
State of North Carolina v. Kalmeaice Kawanna Williams

No. COA16-432

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: December 6, 2016

NO ERROR.
Exhibit 10.4







June 30, 2014


 


Mr.  Brian G. Sweeney


Cablevision Systems Corporation


1111 Stewart Avenue


Bethpage, NY 11714


 


Dear Brian:


 


Re:            Amendment to Time Sharing Agreement







Reference is made hereby to that certain Time Sharing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated April 7, 2014 by and between you and CSC Holdings, LLC (“CSC”).


 


You and CSC hereby agree that, effective as of June 1, 2014, Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in full as follows:


 


“2.       Payment for Use of Aircraft.  Lessee shall pay Lessor the following actual expenses of each flight conducted under this Agreement (the “Reimbursement Amount”) not to exceed the maximum amount legally payable for such flight under FAR Section 91.501(d)(1)-(10):








		(a)	fuel, oil, lubricants and other additives;











		(b)	travel expenses of crew, including food, lodging and ground transportation;











		(c)	hangar and tie-down costs away from the Aircraft's base of operation;











		(d)	additional insurance obtained for the specific flight at the request of Lessee;





 



		(e)	landing fees, airport taxes and similar assessments;











		(f)	customs, foreign permit and similar fees directly related to the flight;











		(g)	in-flight food and beverages;











		(h)	in-flight telecommunication expenses;











		(i)	passenger ground transportation; and











		(j)	flight planning and weather contract services.
















Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that any income is required to be imputed to you with respect to personal use of the Aircraft, calculated using the Standard Industry Fare Level method in accordance with Internal Revenue Service Regulation §1.61-21, the amount payable by you pursuant to this Section 2 shall be reduced by the amount necessary so that the total out of pocket cost to you, including taxes owed as a result of imputed income, is no greater than the Reimbursement Amount.”







Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.


 


	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Name: Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Title: SVP, CSO & Aviation










Accepted and agreed:







/s/ Brian G. Sweeney


Brian G. Sweeney


 


 


-2-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                                5
<MULTIPLIER>                                         1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                       12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                              7,164
<SECURITIES>                                            0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      11,751
<ALLOWANCES>                                            0
<INVENTORY>                                         5,250
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   27,481
<PP&E>                                              4,716
<DEPRECIATION>                                          0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     44,886
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              30,234
<BONDS>                                            79,290
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                   0
<PREFERRED>                                             0
<COMMON>                                                5
<OTHER-SE>                                        (72,594)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       44,886
<SALES>                                           114,622
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  114,622
<CGS>                                              59,637
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      44,876
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      723
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  9,907
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      (202)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          327
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  (529)
<DISCONTINUED>                                          0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                         0
<CHANGES>                                               0
<NET-INCOME>                                         (529)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                           0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                           0



</TABLE>
##### 



Exhibit 21.1
Subsidiaries of the Registrant
 Company
    
    Ownership
    
    State of IncorporationThe State Bank
    
    
    100
    %
    
    MichiganDavison State Bank
    
    
    100
    %
    
    MichiganCommunity Bank Services, Inc.
    
    100% by The State Bank
    
    MichiganFentura Mortgage Company
    
    100% by The State Bank
    
    MichiganWest Michigan Community Bank
    
    
    100
    %
    
    MichiganWest Michigan Mortgage, LLC
    
    99.5% by West
Michigan Community
Bank
0.5% by Community
Insurance Services,
Inc.
    
    MichiganCommunity Insurance
Services, Inc.
    
    100% by West Michigan
Community Bank
    
    Michigan
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-2085

FRED WOMBLE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CLARKSBURG POST OFFICE; CLARKSBURG POLICE

DEPARTMENT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. William M. Kidd, Senior

District Judge. (CA-96-154-1)

Submitted: January 15, 1998 Decided: January 27, 1998

Before MURNAGHAN and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Fred Womble, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant filed an untimely notice of appeal. We dismiss for

lack of jurisdiction. The time periods for filing notices of appeal

are governed by Fed. R. App. P. 4. These periods are "mandatory and

jurisdictional." Browder v. Director, Dep't of Corrections, 434

U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U.S.

220, 229 (1960)). Parties to civil actions have sixty days, if the

United States is a party, within which to file in the district

court notices of appeal from judgments or final orders. Fed. R.

App. P. 4(a)(1). The only exceptions to the appeal period are when

the district court extends the time to appeal under Fed. R. App. P.

4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6).

The district court entered its order on September 27, 1996;

Appellant's notice of appeal was filed on August 11, 1997, which is

beyond the appeal period. Appellant's failure to note a timely appeal or obtain an extension of the appeal period leaves this court

without jurisdiction to consider the merits of Appellant's appeal.

We therefore dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4104 

To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to make permanent the 7.5 

percent threshold for the medical expense deduction for people 65 or older. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

FEBRUARY 27, 2014 

Mrs. NEGRETE MCLEOD 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 make 

permanent the 7.5 percent threshold for the medical 

expense deduction for people 65 or older. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Savings on Medical 

5 Expenses for Seniors Act of 2014’’. 

6 SEC. 2. 7.5 PERCENT THRESHOLD FOR MEDICAL EXPENSE 

7 DEDUCTION FOR PEOPLE 65 OR OLDER MADE 

8 PERMANENT. 

9 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 213(a) of the Internal 

10 Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by inserting before the 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4104 IH

1 period at the end the following: ‘‘(7.5 percent of adjusted 

2 gross income in the case that such taxpayer or such tax3 payer’s spouse has attained age 65 before the close of such 

4 taxable year)’’. 

5 (b) CONFORMING AMENDMENTS.— 

6 (1) Section 213 of the Internal Revenue Code 

7 of 1986 is amended by striking subsection (f). 

8 (2) Section 56(b)(1)(B) of the Internal Revenue 

9 Code of 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘subsection (f) 

10 of such section’’ and inserting ‘‘the parenthetical re11 lating to 7.5 percent’’. 

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

13 this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after 

14 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSK6SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4197 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period of certain authority with respect to judicial review of Merit Systems Protection Board 

decisions relating to whistleblowers, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 11, 2014 

Mr. CUMMINGS (for himself, Mr. ISSA, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. FARENTHOLD, 

and Mr. CONNOLLY) introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, and in addition to 

the Committee on the Judiciary, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions 

as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned 

A BILL 

To amend title 5, United States Code, to extend the period 

of certain authority with respect to judicial review of 

Merit Systems Protection Board decisions relating to 

whistleblowers, and for other purposes. 

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘All Circuit Review Ex5 tension Act’’. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4197 IH

1 SEC. 2. JUDICIAL REVIEW OF MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION 

2 BOARD DECISIONS RELATING TO WHISTLE3 BLOWERS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 7703(b)(1)(B) of title 5, 

5 United States Code, is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and 

6 inserting ‘‘5-year’’. 

7 (b) DIRECTOR REVIEW.—Section 7703(d)(2) of such 

8 title is amended by striking ‘‘2-year’’ and inserting ‘‘5- 

9 year’’. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with BILLS
# CE2004078EN.01049901.xml

| 27.3.2004 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | CE 78/499 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2004

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

CE 78/499

---

(2004/C 78 E/0520)

WRITTEN QUESTION E-3237/03

by Konstantinos Hatzidakis (PPE-DE) to the Commission

(3 November 2003)

Subject:   Access to Internet for Greek households

Subject:

Despite the rapid expansion of Internet, relatively few Greek households are linked up to it or have access to it.

What information does the Commission have regarding access or potential access to Internet for Greek households? What is the position of Greece, compared with other Member States regarding Internet access calculated in percentage terms?

Answer given by Mr Liikanen on behalf of the Commission

(18 December 2003)

(18 December 2003)

Almost all Greek households have the technical infrastructure for internet access. According to the information available to the Commission, 99 % of households have a fixed telephone connection.

However, the number of households linked up to the internet is still fairly low. Greece ranks lowest in the Community (15 Member States) with a figure for households of around 12 % (end 2002), while the Community average is 43 %.

Regarding the total on-line population (households and others), the figure for Greece is around 32 %, the lowest in the Community, along with Portugal (35 %) and France (37 %), the average being 52 %.

---
EXHIBIT 23


<PAGE>


                         Consent of Independent Auditors

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in Registration  Statements on (i)
Form  S-3 No.  333-36805,  (ii)  Form  S-3 No.  333-48551,  (iii)  Form  S-8 No.
333-53653, and (iv) Form S-8 No. 333-53655 of Grove Property Trust of our report
dated February 15, 2000, with respect to the consolidated  financial  statements
and schedule of Grove  Property  Trust included in its Annual Report (Form 10-K)
for the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                        /s/ERNST & YOUNG LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
March 17, 2000