alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 216 (Wednesday, November 9, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 68046]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-22054]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting; Deletion of Agenda Items From October 31, 
2005, Open Meeting

October 31, 2005.
    The following items have been deleted from the list of Agenda items 
scheduled for consideration at the Monday, October 31, 2005, Open 
Meeting and previously listed in the Commission's Notice of Friday, 
October 21, 2005.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Item No.                Bureau                    Subject
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1..................  Enforcement.............  Title: Review of the
                                                Emergency Alert System
                                                (DB Docket No. 04-296).
                                               Summary: The Commission
                                                will consider a First
                                                Report and Order and
                                                Further Notice of
                                                Proposed Rulemaking
                                                concerning the Emergency
                                                Alert System rules.
2..................  Media...................  Title: Implementation of
                                                the Satellite Home
                                                Viewer Extension and
                                                Reauthorization Act of
                                                2004 (MB Docket no. 05-
                                                49) and Implementation
                                                of Section 340 of the
                                                Communications Act.
                                               Summary: The Commission
                                                will consider a Report
                                                and Order to adopt rules
                                                for satellite carriage
                                                of ``significantly
                                                viewed'' television
                                                stations pursuant to the
                                                Satellite Home Viewer
                                                Extension and
                                                Reauthorization Act
                                                (SHVERA).
------------------------------------------------------------------------


Federal Communications Commisission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-22054 Filed 11-1-05; 1:53 p.m.]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
# L_2007305EN.01001301.xml

| 23.11.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 305/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.11.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 305/13

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1365/2007

of 22 November 2007

fixing the maximum export refund for white sugar in the framework of the standing invitation to tender provided for in Regulation (EC) No 900/2007

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 318/2006 of 20 February 2006 on the common organisation of the markets in the sugar sector (1), and in particular the second subparagraph and point (b) of the third subparagraph of Article 33(2) thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Commission Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 of 27 July 2007 on a standing invitation to tender to determine refunds on exports of white sugar for the 2007/2008 marketing year (2) requires the issuing of partial invitations to tender.

| (2) | Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 22 November 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender. |
| --- | --- |

(2)

Pursuant to Article 8(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 and following an examination of the tenders submitted in response to the partial invitation to tender ending on 22 November 2007, it is appropriate to fix a maximum export refund for that partial invitation to tender.

| (3) | The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar, |
| --- | --- |

(3)

The measures provided for in this Regulation are in accordance with the opinion of the Management Committee for Sugar,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

For the partial invitation to tender ending on 22 November 2007, the maximum export refund for the product referred to in Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No 900/2007 shall be 36,395 EUR/100 kg.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on 23 November 2007.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 22 November 2007.

For the Commission

Jean-Luc DEMARTY

Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development

---

(1)  
  OJ L 58, 28.2.2006, p. 1. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 247/2007 (OJ L 69, 9.3.2007, p. 3).

1

(2)  
  OJ L 196, 28.7.2007, p. 26. Regulation as last amended by Commission Regulation (EC) No 1298/2007 (OJ L 289, 7.11.2007, p. 3).

2

---
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 May 28, 2013

d0520

Order 

Clerk

May 28, 2013

146707

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146707

COA: 313614

Bay CC: 11-011008-FC

JESSICA CRYSTAL HERZIG,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 10, 2013 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
United States Department of Labor

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

__________________________________________

T.G., Appellant

and

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, DEFENSE 

INFORMATION SYSTEMS AGENCY, 

SCOTT AIR FORCE BASE, IL, Employer

__________________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Docket No. 21-0073

Issued: October 29, 2021

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Appellant, pro se

Office of Solicitor, for the Director

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL

Before:

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Chief Judge

JANICE B. ASKIN, Judge

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Alternate Judge

On October 22, 2020 appellant sought appeal from October 3, 2018 decision of the Office 

of Workers’ Compensation Programs. The Clerk of the Appellate Boards assigned Docket No. 

21-0073.

The Board has duly considered the matter and notes that its jurisdiction is limited to the 

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

(FECA).1 This jurisdiction encompasses any final decision issued by OWCP within 180 days of 

the date appellant filed her appeal.2 As of the filing of the current appeal, the most recent OWCP 

decision was dated November 7, 2019. However, by an October 19, 2020 decision in Docket No. 

20-0329, the Board affirmed OWCP’s November 7, 2019 decision, finding that OWCP properly 

denied appellant’s request for reconsideration of the merits of its October 3, 2018 decision 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. § 8128(a).

3

 As there is no final adverse decision issued by OWCP within 180 

1

5 U.S.C. § 8149; 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 Docket No. 20-0329 (issued October 19, 2020).
2

days of the filing of this appeal,4 over which the Board may properly exercise jurisdiction, the 

Board concludes that the appeal docketed as Docket No. 21-0073 must be dismissed.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the appeal docketed as Docket No. 21-0073 is 

dismissed.5

Issued: October 29, 2021

Washington, DC

Alec J. Koromilas, Chief Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Janice B. Askin, Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Alternate Judge

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board

4

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 ... OWCP.”

5 Appellant also sought an appeal from an October 19, 2020 decision. To the extent that her October 22, 2020 

appeal may be construed as a timely petition for reconsideration of the Board’s October 19, 2020 decision in Docket 

No. 20-0329, the Board notes that the petition for reconsideration will be separately considered under Docket No. 

20-0329.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000053500
<NAME> JETRONIC INDUSTRIES, INC.
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                             484
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    6,340
<ALLOWANCES>                                        47
<INVENTORY>                                      6,039
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                13,764
<PP&E>                                           3,842
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,411
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  15,008
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            9,864
<BONDS>                                          3,856
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           361
<OTHER-SE>                                         413
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    15,008
<SALES>                                         19,401
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                19,401
<CGS>                                           15,622
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   17,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 744
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  1,099
<INCOME-TAX>                                         8
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              1,091
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     1,091
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .29
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .29
        


</TABLE>
#### Charles A. Belden, Individually and as Trustee for George F. Belden, et al., Respondents, *v.*Susie E. Fitchett, Appellant, Impleaded with Others.

*Belden*v. *Fitchett,*172 App. Div. 908, affirmed.

(Argued October 29, 1918;

decided November 12, 1918.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered February 10, 1916, affirming a judgment in favor of plaintiff entered upon a verdict directed by the court in an action to recover upon a guaranty of payment of rent due under a lease. The answer put in issue the material allegations of the complaint. The principal question was raised by a motion to dismiss the complaint at the close of the evidence, defendant contending that the only parties to the lease were Charles A. Belden. *683on the one part and the hotel company on the other part; that the guaranty was under seal and the liability of this appellant, if any, must necessarily be to the party who contracted in the lease to let the premises, and that this action was not by him, but by entirely different parties not named or mentioned in the lease. Respondents argued that the defect, if any, was waived because not taken advantage of by demurrer or answer, and that the point of the variance between the allegations of the complaint and the proof could not be presented by the motion to dismiss the action and .direct a verdict.

*Edmund L. Mooney, William C. Fitts*and *Frederick A. Card*for appellant.

*James M. Fisk*for respondents.

Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cuddeback, Cardozo and Pound, JJ. Absent: Andrews, J.
NOTE: This order is nonprecedential.



## United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2008-3296 STEVEN G. COKER,

Petitioner,

v. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE,

Respondent. Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Boar in

DA0752070282-C-1. ON MOTION Before PROST, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER The Department of Commerce moves without opposition for a 33-day extension of time, until February 17, 2009, to file its brief. Upon consideration thereof, IT IS ORDERED THAT: The motion is granted. No further extensions should be anticipated. FOR THE COURT 

## FEB 

# 2 2009 /s/ Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk FILED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT FEB 0 2 2009 Motiroitu CLERK Date

cc: Peter H. Noone, Esq. Robert E. Chandler, Esq. s17
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-26-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-26-1998
<CASH>                                          39,932
<SECURITIES>                                    29,485
<RECEIVABLES>                                  607,363
<ALLOWANCES>                                    10,583
<INVENTORY>                                    395,971
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,118,607
<PP&E>                                       1,859,792
<DEPRECIATION>                                 820,092
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,920,433
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          876,453
<BONDS>                                        566,592
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         4,750
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,311,292
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,920,433
<SALES>                                      9,769,973
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,769,973
<CGS>                                        9,346,752
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                9,346,752
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               206,092
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              34,596
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                182,533
<INCOME-TAX>                                    69,500
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            113,033
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 14,815
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    98,218
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.06
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.05
        

</TABLE>
Opinion filed May 27, 2016

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

___________

No. 11-16-00127-CR

___________

PATRICIA GALINDO, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 70th District Court

Ector County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. A-33,327

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant, Patricia Galindo, has filed in this court a motion to dismiss this

appeal. In the motion, Appellant asks that we withdraw her notice of appeal and 

dismiss this appeal. The motion is signed by both Appellant and her counsel in 

accordance with TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2.

The motion is granted, and the appeal is dismissed. 

May 27, 2016 PER CURIAM

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

Willson, J., and Bailey, J.
EXHIBIT 32



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 LogSearch, Inc.  (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, James Durward, Principal Executive Officer, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



(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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.







Date: June 20, 2006

By:  /s/ James Durward

Name:  James Durward

Title:  President, CFO, Treasurer, Chief Accounting Officer and Director (Principal Executive Officer)
**Exhibit 23.1**
**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**
The Board of DirectorsGrey Wolf, Inc.:
We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration StatementNos. 33-34590, 33-75338, 333-19027, 333-65049, 333-41334, and 333-90888 on FormS-8 of Grey Wolf, Inc. and Registration Statement Nos. 333-14783,333-06077,333-26519, 333-20423, 333-36593, 333-39683, 333-86949, 333-40874, and333-106997 on Form S-3 of Grey Wolf, Inc. of our report dated January 30, 2004,with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Grey Wolf, Inc. as ofDecember 31, 2003 and 2002, and the related consolidated statements ofoperations, stockholders’ equity and comprehensive income, and cash flows foreach of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2003, and therelated financial statement schedule, which report appears in the December 31,2003 annual report on the second amendment to the Form 10-K/A of Grey Wolf, Inc.
/s/ KPMG LLP
Houston, TexasAugust 6, 2004
#### GRACIJA RAMONA GORKA, Appellant, v. THE STATE OF NEVADA, Respondent.

No. 21874

December 6, 1991

822 P.2d 111

*Jerome M. Polaha*and *John S. Bodger,*Reno; *Richard F. Cornell,*Reno, for Appellant.

*Frankie Sue Del Papa,*Attorney General, Carson City; *Dorothy Nash Holmes,*District Attorney and *Gary H. Hatlestad,*Deputy District Attorney, Washoe County, for Respondent.

*852OPINION

*Per Curiam:*

This is an appeal from a judgment of conviction pursuant to a jury verdict of one count of obtaining money by false pretenses, a felony. NRS 205.380. The district court sentenced appellant to one year in the Nevada State Prison, and ordered appellant to pay restitution. The district court suspended the sentence, and placed appellant on probation for a period not to exceed eighteen months.

Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between Washoe County and its employees, employees who work and reside in Incline Village are entitled to obtain a small amount of extra compensation, referred to as differential pay, in order to offset the higher cost of living. Appellant, a long-term employee of Washoe County, is accused of collecting from Washoe County slightly more than $3,000 in differential pay over a three year period although, according to the state, her primary residence was not in Incline Village.

Based on our review of the record, we conclude that the state failed to present sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt appellant’s guilt of obtaining money by a false pretense. Specifically, the collective bargaining agreement at issue does not define the term “reside,” nor does it specifically require that an employee maintain a primary residence in Incline Village in order to be eligible for differential pay. All of the evidence presented at trial may be viewed as consistent with appellant’s claim that she resided in Incline Village during the period of time in question. Indeed it appears that the evidence may establish that appellant maintained her primary residence in Incline Village. In any case, the record is entirely devoid of any evidence to support the conclusion that appellant misrepresented her place of residence with the intent to defraud the county of differential pay. At best, the evidence in this case may support the conclusion that appellant committed a civil wrong against the county in violation of the county’s interpretation of the terms of the collective bargaining agreement.1

Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of conviction.2

1

Of course, the meaning of the term “reside” in the collective bargaining agreement was not litigated in the action below because this matter was pursued in a criminal, rather than a civil proceeding.

2

In light of this determination, we find it unnecessary to address appellant’s remaining contentions.
NO. SCWC-30382

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAIʻI

 

STATE OF HAWAIʻI, Respondent/Plaintiff-Appellee,

vs.

JOHN P. DUNBAR, Petitioner/Defendant-Appellant.

 

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS

(CASE NO. 2DTI-09-025858)

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION

(By: Recktenwald, C.J., for the court1)

Upon consideration of the motion for reconsideration of

the December 2, 2010 order dismissing the application for a writ

of certiorari,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the motion for

reconsideration is denied.

DATED: Honolulu, Hawaiʻi, December 21, 2010.

FOR THE COURT:

Chief Justice

1 Considered by: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, Acoba, and Duffy, JJ., and

Circuit Judge Nishimura, assigned by reason of vacancy.

Electronically Filed

Supreme Court

SCWC-30382

21-DEC-2010

09:29 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
                              ART 5 FDS for 10-K
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         319379
<NAME>                        PSC Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                    1,000
<CURRENCY>                          0
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                  12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>              DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                 JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                   DEC-31-1996
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                     1
<CASH>                         10,838
<SECURITIES>                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                  29,501
<ALLOWANCES>                    1,101
<INVENTORY>                    18,306
<CURRENT-ASSETS>               59,889
<PP&E>                         35,612
<DEPRECIATION>                  8,225
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                183,361
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>          48,106
<BONDS>                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>               0
<PREFERRED>                         0
<COMMON>                          112
<OTHER-SE>                     15,189
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>  183,361
<SALES>                       146,051
<TOTAL-REVENUES>              146,051
<CGS>                          83,675
<TOTAL-COSTS>                 122,556
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                  480
<LOSS-PROVISION>                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              5,835
<INCOME-PRETAX>               (65,927)
<INCOME-TAX>                  (24,393)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>           (41,534)
<DISCONTINUED>                 (5,446)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                     0
<CHANGES>                           0
<NET-INCOME>                  (46,980)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   (4.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                       0
        


</TABLE>