alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### National Aeronautics and Space Adminstration

          - [Notice 05-013] 

# AGENCY:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA). 

# ACTION:

Notice of meeting. 

# SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-463, as amended, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration announces a meeting by teleconference of the Return to Flight Task Group (RTF TG). 

# DATES:

Thursday, February 17, 2005, from 11 a.m. until 12:30 p.m. Central Standard Time. 

# ADDRESSES:

The teleconference will originate from the Apollo Annex, Suite 101, 1740 NASA Parkway, Houston, TX, 77598. 

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Vincent D. Watkins at (281) 792-7523. 

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                    The public may monitor the teleconference audio from the Apollo Annex Room 175 up to the seating capacity of the meeting room. Attendees will be requested to sign a register. Audio of the teleconference will be distributed via the Internet at                     *http://returntoflight.org*.                 

The agenda for the meeting is as follows:

—Welcome remarks from Co-Chair. 

—Discussion of status of NASA's implementation of selected Columbia Accident Investigation Board return to flight recommendations. 

—Action item summary from Executive Secretary. 

—Closing remarks from Co-Chair. 

It is imperative that the meeting be held on this date to accommodate the scheduling priorities of the key participants. 

P. Diane Rausch, 

Advisory Committee Management Officer, National Aeronautics and Space Administration. 

[FR Doc. 05-2164 Filed 2-3-05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7510-13-P
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report of Vistula Communications Services, Inc.(the “Company”) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 asfiled with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),I, George R. Vaughn, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, to mybest knowledge and belief, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, adopted pursuantto §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

1)               the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

 

2)               the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
|   | /s/  GEORGE R. VAUGHN  |   |
|--------|-----------------------------|--------|
|   | George  R. Vaughn           |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer    |

 

 

Dated:May 17, 2005

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906, or otherdocument authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signaturethat appears in typed form within the electronic version of this writtenstatement required by Section 906, has been provided to VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and will be retained by VistulaCommunications Services, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

----
Exhibit 11
SEARS, ROEBUCK AND CO.
AND CONSOLIDATED SUBSIDIARIES
COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION> 

                                                  Year Ended
                                            --------------------------
(millions, except per common share data)    1995       1994       1993
                                            ----       ----       ----
<S>                                       <C>       <C>        <C>
EARNINGS
 Income from continuing operations        $ 1,025    $   857    $   625
 Discontinued operations                      776        402      1,960
 Extraordinary gain (loss)                      -        195       (211)
 Cumulative effect of accounting changes        -          -          - 
                                           -------    -------   --------

Net income                                  1,801      1,454      2,374

Preferred share dividends                     (29)       (29)       (29)
                                          --------   --------   --------
Net income applicable to common shares    $ 1,772    $ 1,425    $ 2,345

WEIGHTED AVERAGE NUMBER OF
  COMMON SHARES (1)
 Primary                                     394.0      388.9      382.9
 Fully dilutive effect of stock options- 
  after application of treasury 
  stock method(2)                                -          -          - 
                                            -------     ------    -------
 Maximum number of common and common
   equivalent shares outstanding             394.0      388.9      382.9

EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE (1)
    PRIMARY
 Income from continuing operations          $  2.53    $  2.13    $  1.56
 Discontinued operations                       1.97       1.03       5.12
 Extraordinary gain (loss)                       -        0.50      (0.55)
                                             ------    -------    --------
 Net income                                $  4.50    $  3.66    $  6.13

FULLY DILUTED (3)
 Income from continuing operations         $  2.53    $  2.13    $  1.56
 Discontinued operations                      1.97       1.03       5.12
 Extraordinary gain (loss)                      -        0.50      (0.55)
                                           -------    -------    --------
 Net income                               $  4.50    $  3.66    $  6.13

<FN>
(1)   Series A Mandatorily Exchangeable Preferred Shares are considered 
common shares for purposes of computing weighted average number of common 
shares.

(2)  The maximum dilution of earnings per common share assumes the exercise 
of all outstanding stock options.  The treasury stock method has been applied
based upon the higher of the closing price at fiscal year end or the average
price of the common shares during the respective years.

(3)   Fully diluted earnings per common share are not disclosed in the
Company's financial statements in accordance with APB Opinion No. 15 since
the maximum dilutive effect is less than 3%.
</FN>
</TABLE>
#### WILLIE LESTER GATLIN, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 10999

March 28, 1980

608 P.2d 1100

*Redmon & McGimsey, Ltd.,*Las Vegas, for Appellant.

*Richard H. Bryan,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Robert J. Miller,*District Attorney, and *H. Leon Simon,*Deputy District Attorney, Clark County, for Respondent.

OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

Appellant contends that the evidence adduced at trial was legally insufficient to support his conviction of robbery with use of a deadly weapon.

At trial, the victim testified that while walking down a street in Las Vegas he was approached by a man who identified himself as Mr. Chappie and who offered to sell him a ring or a watch. The man explained he needed money to buy gasoline. *304The victim responded that he did not wish to buy either item but would be willing to “help him with one dollar or two to buy some gas.” The two could not find an open gasoline station so the victim gave Mr. Chappie two dollars, advised him where he might find an open station, and went his separate way. About fifteen or twenty minutes later the same Mr. Chappie approached the victim in a car driven by the appellant and offered the victim a ride home. The offer was accepted. Subsequently, the car was driven on to a narrow street where the appellant robbed the victim at knife-point. After being ordered from the car, the victim telephoned the police and gave a description of the automobile including a license number. Shortly thereafter, the suspect vehicle was stopped and Mr. Chappie and the appellant were apprehended. The victim was brought to the scene and identified appellant at that time. The victim also identified appellant in court.

We do not believe it is necessary to recount the testimony of the other prosecution witnesses. Neither is a summary of appellant’s testimony, which differed from that of the victim’s in several material respects, required. The victim’s testimony constituted substantial evidence sufficient to support the conviction. Where there is conflicting evidence it is the role of the trier of fact, not a court of errors, to resolve that conflict. Stewart v. State, 94 Nev. 378, 580 P.2d 473 (1978). In this case, the trier of fact construed the evidence adversely to plaintiff, and we have no hesitancy in deciding that the jury acted reasonably in concluding that the State sustained its burden of proof. *See*McKinney v. State, 95 Nev. 494, 596 P.2d 503 (1979); Stewart v. State, *supra.*

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed.
EXHIBIT 22.1

                           SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT



              PSC Scanning Systems Inc. (100% owned by the Company)
                          and incorporated in New York

             Photographic Sciences GmbH (100% owned by the Company)
                           and incorporated in Germany

                PSC Bar Code Limited (100% owned by the Company)
                     and incorporated in the United Kingdom

            PSC Foreign Sales Corporation (100% owned by the Company)
                   and incorporated in the U.S. Virgin Islands

               LazerData Holdings Inc. (100% owned by the Company)
                          and incorporated in New York

          LazerData Corporation (100% owned by LazerData Holdings Inc.)
                           and incorporated in Florida

           Instaread Corporation (100% owned by LazerData Corporation)
                           and incorporated in Florida

                   PSC S.A., Inc. (100% owned by the Company)
                          and incorporated in New York
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

M.B., Appellant

and

U.S. POSTAL SERVICE, POST OFFICE, 

Portland, OR, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 22-0974

Issued: February 28, 2023

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge

VALERIE D. EVANS-HARRELL, Alternate Judge

JAMES D. McGINLEY, Alternate Judge

On June 7, 2022 appellant sought an appeal from a purported August 4, 2021 decision of 

the Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (OWCP). Together with her appeal request, she 

submitted a request for oral argument pursuant to 20 C.F.R. § 501.5(b). The Clerk of the Appellate 

Boards assigned Docket No. 22-0974.

The Board, having duly considered the matter, notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

review of final adverse decisions of OWCP issued under the Federal Employees’ Compensation 

Act.1 For final adverse decisions of OWCP issued on or after November 19, 2008, the Board’s 

review authority is limited to appeals which are filed within 180 days from the date of issuance of 

OWCP’s decision.2 The case record as transmitted to the Board does not contain a final adverse 

decision of OWCP issued within 180 days from the date of docketing of the current appeal.

3

 As 

there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP over which the Board may properly exercise 

1 5 U.S.C. § 8101 et seq.; 20 C.F.R. §§ 501.2(c) and 501.3(a).

2 20 C.F.R. § 501.3(e) provides in pertinent part: “Any notice of appeal must be filed within 180 days from the 

date of issuance of a decision of the OWCP.”

3

Id.
2

jurisdiction, the Board concludes that the appeal docketed as No. 22-0974 must be dismissed.4 

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as No. 22-0974 is dismissed.

Issued: February 28, 2023

Washington, DC

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Valerie D. Evans-Harrell, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

James D. McGinley, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4 The Board’s decisions and orders are “final upon the expiration of 30 days from the date of their issuance.” Id. at 

§ 501.6(d).
I 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 522 

To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and Abuse Prevention 

Act to authorize the Federal Trade Commission to issue new rules 

to prohibit any telemarketing calls during the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 

7:00 p.m. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 14, 2009 

Mr. KING of New York introduced the following bill; which was referred to 

the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Telemarketing and Consumer Fraud and 

Abuse Prevention Act to authorize the Federal Trade 

Commission to issue new rules to prohibit any telemarketing calls during the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 

p.m. 

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 ‘‘Protection From Tele5 marketers Act’’. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
2 

•HR 522 IH

1 SEC. 2. FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION RULES. 

2 Section 3(a) of the Telemarketing and Consumer 

3 Fraud and Abuse Prevention Act (15 U.S.C. 6102) is 

4 amended by adding at the end the following: 

5 ‘‘(4) The Commission shall include in such 

6 rules respecting other abusive telemarketing acts or 

7 practices a requirement that telemarketers shall not 

8 initiate any outbound telephone calls to any person 

9 during the hours of 5:00 p.m. to 7:00 p.m. in the 

10 locality of the person called.’’. 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with BILLS
```

                                                                     Exhibit 3

                        NAVISTAR FINANCIAL CORPORATION
                               AND SUBSIDIARIES

                    ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BY-LAWS

The following documents of Navistar Financial Corporation are incorporated
herein by reference:

3.1     Restated Certificate of Incorporation of Navistar Financial Coporation
        (as amended  and  in  effect on  December 15, 1987). Filed on Form 8-K
        dated December 17, 1987.  Filed under File No. 001-04146.

3.2     The    By-Laws  of   Navistar   Financial   Corporation   (as  amended
        February 29,  1988).  Filed  on Form  10-K  dated  January  19,  1989.
        Filed under File No.  001-04146.

3.3     Amendment to the By-Laws of Navistar  Financial Corporation.  Filed as
        Exhibit 3.1  on Form 10-K dated  December 18,  2003.  Filed under File
        No. 001-04146.
```
Document headings vary by document type but may contain
                    the following: the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document
the number of the CFR title and the number of each part
                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly
                      related to
the agency docket number / agency internal file number
the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in
                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory
                      Actions See the
                    Document Drafting Handbook
                    for more details.
 Small Business Administration [Disaster Declaration # 10228 and # 10229]
 AGENCY: Small Business Administration.
 ACTION: Notice.
 SUMMARY: This is a Notice of the Presidential declaration of a major disaster for the State of New Hampshire (FEMA-1610-DR), dated October 26, 2005. *Incident:*
                         Severe Storms and Flooding. *Incident Period:*
                         October 7, 2005 through October 18, 2005. *Effective Date:*
                         October 26, 2005. *Physical Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         December 27, 2005. *EIDL Loan Application Deadline Date:*
                         July 26, 2006.
 ADDRESSES: Submit completed loan applications to: U.S. Small Business Administration, National Processing and Disbursement Center, 14925 Kingsport Road, Fort Worth, TX 76155.
 FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: A. Escobar, Office of Disaster Assistance, U.S. Small Business Administration, 409 3rd Street, Suite 6050, Washington, DC 20416.


SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is hereby given that as a result of the President's major disaster declaration on October 26, 2005, applications for disaster loans may be filed at the address listed above or other locally announced locations. The following areas have been determined to be adversely affected by the disaster: *Primary Counties:* Cheshire, Grafton, Hillsborough, Merrimack, and Sullivan. *Contiguous Counties:* New Hampshire: Belknap, Carroll, Coos, Rockingham, and Strafford. Massachusetts: Essex, Franklin, Middlesex, and Worcester. Vermont: Caledonia, Essex, Orange, Windham, and Windsor. The Interest Rates are: PercentHomeowners with Credit Available Elsewhere
5.375Homeowners without Credit Available Elsewhere
2.687Businesses with Credit Available Elsewhere
6.557Businesses and Small Agricultural Cooperatives without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000Other (Including Non-Profit Organizations) with Credit Available Elsewhere
4.750Businesses and Non-Profit Organizations without Credit Available Elsewhere
4.000
 The number assigned to this disaster for physical damage is 102286 and for economic injury is 102290. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers 59002 and 59008) Herbert L. Mitchell, Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.


[FR Doc. 05-21959 Filed 11-2-05; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF CONSOLIDATED INCOME AND RETAINED EARNINGS AND THE STATEMENT
OF CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL CONDITION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>                                              
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              OCT-31-1998<F1>
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-31-1998
<CASH>                                             4,900
<SECURITIES>                                     110,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  1,007,700
<ALLOWANCES>                                     (10,300)
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                       0
<PP&E>                                            14,100
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (8,900)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 1,684,500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                  0
<BONDS>                                          972,700
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                         171,000
<OTHER-SE>                                       115,200
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   1,684,500
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  79,300
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     21,900
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   7,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                  (2,600)
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                23,200
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   28,900
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (11,200)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               17,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                      17,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                          0
<FN>
<F1>THE CORPORATION'S STATEMENT OF FINANCIAL CONDITION IS UNCLASSIFIED;
THEREFORE, THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN CURRENT AND LONG-TERM ASSETS AND 
LIABILITIES IS NOT AVAILABLE.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 300

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

DIVISION IV

No. CR-14-294

DEWAYNE CURTIS WRIGHT

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

Opinion Delivered May 6, 2015

APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2012-98-3]

HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED; MOTION TO

WITHDRAW GRANTED

PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge

Dewayne Curtis Wright appeals from his Ouachita County Circuit Court convictions

for aggravated robbery, theft of property, and third-degree battery. Appellate counsel has filed

a motion with this court to be relieved as counsel pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S.

738 (1967), and Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(k) (2014). The motion is accompanied

by a no-merit brief containing an abstract and addendum of the proceedings below. The

abstract and addendum in counsel’s brief include all objections and motions decided adversely

to appellant, and counsel explains in the argument portion of his brief why there is nothing

in the record that would arguably support an appeal. Wright has filed a pro se statement of

points for reversal, and the State has filed a response thereto. 

The test for filing a no-merit brief is not whether there is any reversible error but

whether an appeal would be wholly frivolous. See Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 300

S.W.2d 904 (1994). From our review of the record and the brief presented to us, including

consideration of Wright’s pro se points for reversal, which are either not preserved for appeal

or do not otherwise support reversal, we find compliance with Rule 4-3(k) and that there is

no merit to an appeal.

Affirmed; motion to withdraw granted.

VIRDEN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.

N. Mark Klappenbach, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Ashley Priest, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

2