alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 87 (Thursday, May 6, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 24799]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10606]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 100

[Docket No. USCG-2010-0081]
RIN 1625-AA08


Special Local Regulations for Marine Events; Chester River, 
Chestertown, MD; Correction

ACTION: Temporary final rule; correction.

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

SUMMARY: In the Federal Register published on April 23, 2010, the Coast 
Guard established special local regulations during the reenactment 
portion of the ``Chestertown Tea Party Festival.'' The Chestertown Tea 
Party Festival is a marine event to be held on the waters of the 
Chester River, Chestertown, MD on May 29, 2010. The special local 
regulation published with an error in the heading, specifically, the 
CFR title and part in the heading should have read ``33 CFR Part 100,'' 
instead of ``33 CFR Part 165.''

DATES: This correction is effective May 6, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information about this correction, 
contact Kevin d'Eustachio, Office of Regulations and Administrative 
Law, (202) 372-3854 <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#87ece2f1eee9a9eaa9e3e2f2f4f3e6e4efeee8c7f2f4e4e0a9eaeeeb"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="1b707e6d72753576357f7e6e686f7a787372745b6e68787c35767277">[email protected]</span></a>. For information about 
the original regulation, contact Mr. Ronald Houck, Sector Baltimore 
Waterways Management Division, Coast Guard; telephone (410) 576-2674, 
e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#02506d6c636e662c4e2c4a6d77616942777161652c6f6b6e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="07556869666b63294b294f6872646c4772746460296a6e6b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In FR doc 2010-9496 appearing on page 21167 
in the issue of Friday, April 23, 2010, the following corrections are 
made:
    1. In the document heading on page 21167, correct the CFR citation 
to read ``33 CFR Part 100''.

    Dated: April 28, 2010.
S. Venckus,
Office of Regulations and Administrative Law (CG-0943), U.S. Coast 
Guard.
[FR Doc. 2010-10606 Filed 5-5-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-04-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1611

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to broaden its scope and make

the moratorium permanent, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

SEPTEMBER 22, 1999

Mr. LOTT (for Mr. MCCAIN) introduced the following bill; which was read

twice and referred to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To amend the Internet Tax Freedom Act to broaden its

scope and make the moratorium permanent, 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. MORATORIUM MADE PERMANENT; SCOPE.

4 Section 1101(a) of the Internet Tax Freedom Act is

5 amended—

6 (1) by striking ‘‘during the period beginning on

7 October 1, 1998, and ending 3 years after the date

8 of the enactment of this Act—’’ and inserting ‘‘after

9 September 30, 1998:’’;
2

•S 1611 IS

1 (2) by striking ‘‘and’’ after the semicolon in

2 paragraph (1);

3 (3) redesignating paragraph (2) as paragraph

4 (3); and

5 (4) inserting after paragraph (1) the following:

6 ‘‘(2) sales or use taxes for domestic or foreign

7 goods or services acquired through electronic com8 merce; and’’.

9 SEC. 2. SENSE OF THE SENATE.

10 It is the sense of the Senate that United States rep11 resentatives to the World Trade Organization, and any

12 other multilateral trade organization of which the United

13 States is a member, should resolutely advocate that it is

14 the firm position of the United States that electronic com15 merce conducted via the Internet should not be burdened

16 by national or local regulation, taxation, or the imposition

17 of tariffs on such commerce.

Æ
Exhibit 32.1

NANOGEN, INC.

CERTIFICATIONS REQUIRED BY

RULE 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

I, Howard C. Birndorf, Chief Executive Officer of Nanogen, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, based on my knowledge:



|(1) | The Companys Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
|--- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Company.
|--- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

March 16, 2007



/s/    HOWARD C. BIRNDORFHoward C. Birndorf Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 32

**Certification pursuant to 18 USC 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002** 

The undersigned each hereby certifies that, to his or her knowledge, (i) the Form 10-Q filed byAB&T Financial Corporation(the "Registrant") for the quarter endedSeptember 30,2008, fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and (ii) the information contained in that report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant on the dates and for the periods presented therein. 

**                                                                                **** **

 

 

Date:November 14, 2008                   */s/**Daniel C.        Ayscue               *

Daniel C. Ayscue

Interim President and Chief Financial Officer

(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
<PAGE>   1
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1
Schedule II - Valuation and Qualifying Accounts

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                  ADDITIONS           DEDUCTIONS
                                              BEGINNING          CHARGED TO           CHARGED TO         ENDING BALANCE
                                               BALANCE             INCOME               RESERVE
                                           ----------------    ----------------     ----------------     ---------------
<S>                                               <C>               <C>                  <C>                 <C>
Accounts receivable allowances - 1998             $638,000          $2,954,000           $2,534,000          $1,058,000
Accounts receivable allowances - 1997              161,000           2,790,000            2,313,000             638,000
Accounts receivable allowances - 1996               48,000           1,656,000            1,543,000             161,000
</TABLE>






<PAGE>   2

                            REPORT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS


     We have audited in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards,
     the financial statements included in Advantage Learning Systems, Inc.'s
     annual report to shareholders included in this Form 10-K, and have issued
     our report thereon dated February 2, 1999. Our audit was made for the
     purpose of forming an opinion on those statements taken as a whole. The
     schedule listed in the index above are the responsibility of the company's
     management and are presented for purposes of complying with the Securities
     and Exchange Commissions rules and are not part of the basic financial
     statements. These schedules have been subjected to the auditing procedures
     applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion,
     fairly state in all material respects the financial data required to be set
     forth therein in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a
     whole.


                                                     /s/  Arthur Andersen LLP

                                                     ARTHUR ANDERSEN LLP

     Milwaukee, Wisconsin
     February 2, 1999
S. 1652

One Hundred Sixth Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the sixth day of January, one thousand nine hundred and ninety-nine

An Act

To designate the Old Executive Office Building located at 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia, as the ‘‘Dwight D.

Eisenhower Executive Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER EXECUTIVE

OFFICE BUILDING.

The Old Executive Office Building located at 17th Street and

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, in Washington, District of Columbia,

shall be known and designated as the ‘‘Dwight D. Eisenhower

Executive Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the building referred to

in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference to the ‘‘Dwight

D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 86 (Wednesday, May 5, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 24754]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-10549]



[[Page 24754]]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET


Cost of Hospital and Medical Care Treatment Furnished by the 
Department of Defense Military Treatment Facilities; Certain Rates 
Regarding Recovery From Tortiously Liable Third Persons

AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the 
President.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: By virtue of the authority vested in the President by Section 
2(a) of Pub. L. 87-603 (76 Stat. 593; 42 U.S.C. 2652), and delegated to 
the Director of the Office of Management and Budget by the President 
through Executive Order No. 11541 of July 1, 1970, the rates referenced 
below are hereby established. These rates are for use in connection 
with the recovery from tortiously liable third persons for the cost of 
inpatient medical services furnished by military treatment facilities 
through the Department of Defense (DoD). The rates have been 
established in accordance with the requirements of OMB Circular A-25, 
requiring reimbursement of the full cost of all services provided. 
These inpatient medical service rates became effective October 1, 2009, 
and will remain in effect until further notice. The outpatient medical, 
dental, and cosmetic surgery rates published on December 15, 2009, 
remain in effect until further notice. Note that the aforementioned 
outpatient rates are 2009 rates, and not 2008 as originally published. 
Pharmacy rates are updated periodically. A full disclosure of all rates 
is posted at the DoD's Uniform Business Office Web site: http://www.tricare.mil/ocfo/mcfs/ubo/mhs_rates/inpatient.cfm.

Peter R. Orszag,
Director.
[FR Doc. 2010-10549 Filed 5-4-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
<PAGE>

                                                                  EXHIBIT 23.1

               CONSENT OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP, INDEPENDENT AUDITORS


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 333-83993, No. 333-50217 and No. 333-50381) pertaining to the
Employee Stock Purchase Plan and the 1993 Stock Option Plan, 1995 Stock
Option/Issuance Plan, and 1997 Stock Incentive Plan of Nanogen, Inc., of our
report dated January 28, 2000, with respect to the consolidated financial
statements of Nanogen, Inc., included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for
the year ended December 31, 1999.

                                            ERNST & YOUNG LLP

San Diego, California
February 17, 2000
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 Real Value Estates, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2009, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marina
Karpilovski, Principal 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 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 results of the
          operation of the Company.


/s/ Marina Karpilovski
-----------------------------------
Marina Karpilovski
Principal Financial Officer
October 1, 2009
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.

 June 25, 2013

p0617

Order 

Clerk

June 25, 2013

146886

JEFFREY NEWTON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

and

RICHARD NEWTON,

Plaintiff, 

v SC: 146886

COA: 314037

Oakland CC: 1997-543058-CZ

THOMAS FREYDL and

FREYDL & ASSOCIATES,

Defendants-Appellees.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 11, 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.
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Alton Thomas Davis,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 27, 2010

s0920 

# Order

September 27, 2010

140607 & (19)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140607 COA: 294842 Kalkaska CC: 97-001695-FC GERALD LYNN CALKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the November 19, 2009 order of the Court of Appeal s is considered, and it is DE NIED, because the defendant’s motion for relief from judgment is prohibited by MCR 6.502 (G). The motion to remand

is DENIED.
In The 

Court of Appeals 

Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo

No. 07-14-00009-CR 

JAMES CHARLES BEDREE, APPELLANT 

 

V. 

 

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE 

 

On Appeal from the 181st District Court 

Randall County, Texas 

Trial Court No. 23,626-B, Honorable John B. Board, Presiding 

 

July 14, 2014 

 

ORDER 

 

Before QUINN, C.J., and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 

Appellant James Charles Bedree appeals from his conviction for indecency with 

a child. On July 10, 2014, we received a motion to withdraw from appellant’s counsel

wherein he stated that appellant had not completed payment of attorney’s fees. On 

June 26, 2014, we abated the cause in response to the court reporter’s request for an 

extension of time to file the record due to non-payment of the record. In our abatement 

opinion we directed the trial court to determine the following:

1. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; 
2

2. whether appellant is indigent; 

3. whether appellant is entitled to a free record.

We, now, direct the trial court to include the following items to be determined at the 

abatement hearing:

4. whether appellant is entitled to appointed counsel and, if so,

5. whether retained counsel should be appointed.

The trial court is also directed to enter such orders necessary to address the 

aforementioned questions. So too shall it include its findings on those matters in a 

supplemental record and cause that record to be filed with this court by July 28, 2014. 

Should further time be needed to perform these tasks, then same must be requested 

before July 28, 2014. Furthermore, the motion to withdraw is denied at this time.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES Public Health Service

 

 National Institute for Occupational 

 Safety and Health

 Robert A. Taft Laboratories

 4676 Columbia Parkway

 Cincinnati, OH 45226-1998

 Phone: 513-533-6825

 Fax: 513-533-6826

 

 November 17, 2011 

Ms. Rachel Leiton, Director 

Division of Energy Employees Occupational 

 Illness Compensation 

U.S. Department of Labor 

200 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Room C-3321 

Washington, District of Columbia 20210 

Dear Ms. Leiton: 

On behalf of the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and as required 

by 42 C.F.R. § 83.17(d), I am notifying you of the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a 

class of employees from W.R. Grace and Company in Curtis Bay, MD, as an addition to the Special 

Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000. On October 18, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 7384q(b), the Secretary of 

HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC: 

All Atomic Weapons Employees who worked at any building or area at the facility owned by 

W.R. Grace and Company in Curtis Bay, Maryland, for the operational period from May 1, 

1956 through January 31, 1958, for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work 

days, occurring either solely under this employment or in combination with work days within 

the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees included in the Special 

Exposure Cohort. 

This designation became effective on November 17, 2011, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. § 

7384l(14)(C). Hence, beginning on November 17, 2011, members of this class of employees, 

defined as reported in this notice, became members of the SEC. 

 Sincerely, 

 

 [Signature on File] 

 Stuart L. Hinnefeld, Director 

 Division of Compensation Analysis and Support 

 National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
CHIEF JUSTICE

ROGELIO VALDEZ

JUSTICES

NELDA V. RODRIGUEZ

DORI CONTRERAS GARZA

GINA M. BENAVIDES

GREGORY T. PERKES

NORA L. LONGORIA

CLERK

DORIAN E. RAMIREZ NUECES COUNTY COURTH OUSE

901 LEOPARD, 10TH FL OOR

CORPUS C HRISTI, TEXAS 78401

361

- 888

- 0416 (TEL)

361

- 888

- 0794 (FAX)

HIDALGO COUNTY

ADMINISTRATION BLDG.

100 E. CANO, 5TH FLO OR

EDINBURG, TEXAS 7853 9

956

- 318

- 2405 (TEL)

956

- 318

- 2403 (FAX)

www.txcourts.gov/13thcoa 

# Court of Appeals

Thirteenth District of Texas

October 27, 2015

Hon. Mark Skurka

District Attorney

901 Leopard Street, Room 205

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Hon. Douglas K. Norman

Asst. District Attorney

901 Leopard, Room 206

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL * H on. Danice L. Obregon

Attorney at Law

802 N. Caranchua, Suite 2100

Corpus Christi, TX 78401

* DELIVERED VIA E

- MAIL *

Re: Cause No. 13

- 11

- 00786

- CR

Tr.Ct.No. 10

- CR

- 4228

- G

Style: MICKEY BOSWELL v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

Appellant’s motion for rehearing and motion for rehearing en banc in the above

cause were this day DENIED by this Court.

Very truly yours,

Dorian E. Ramirez, Clerk

DER:ch
Exhibit 99.1

Schedule II  Valuation and Qualifying
Accounts

|                                       |  |                    |       |                                |   |                                 |  |                 |       |  |   |       | 
|-------------------------------------- |  | ------------------ | ----- | ------------------------------ | - | ------------------------------- |  | --------------- | ----- |  | - | ----- | 
|                                       |  |                    |       |                                |   |                                 |  |                 |       |  |   |       | 
|(In Thousands)                         |  | Beginning
 balance |       | Additions
 charged to
 expense |   | Deductions
 charged to
 reserve |  | Ending
 balance |      
|Accounts
 receivable allowances  2009 |  | $                  | 1,090 |                                | $ | 2,821                           |  | $               | 2,519 |  | $ | 1,392 | 
|                                       |  |                    |       |                                |   |                                 |  |                 |       |  |   |       | 
|Accounts
 receivable allowances  2008 |  |                    | 1,072 |                                |   | 2,141                           |  |                 | 2,123 |  |   | 1,090 | 
|                                       |  |                    |       |                                |   |                                 |  |                 |       |  |   |       | 
|Accounts
 receivable allowances  2007 |  |                    | 1,133 |                                |   | 2,862                           |  |                 | 2,923 |  |   | 1,072 | 

---
* Pursuant to Local Rule 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 Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-11120

Summary Calendar

 

CHRISTOPHER DAVID MALICK,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND PARK ET AL.,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Texas

USDC No. 3:95-CV-2794-G

- - - - - - - - - -

May 28, 1997

Before SMITH, DUHE and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Christopher David Malick appeals from the district court’s

grant of summary judgment to the defendants in his civil rights

suit. He argues that the court erred by granting summary

judgment to the defendants on his malicious prosecution claims

and by determining that the remainder of his claims were timebarred. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, the judgment is AFFIRMED for essentially the

reasons stated by the district court.
No. 96-11120

- 2 -

AFFIRMED.