alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 240 (Thursday, December 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64192]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30448]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

[Declaration of Disaster Loan Area #2811; Amendment #2]


U.S. Territory of the Virgin Islands; Declaration of Disaster 
Loan Area

    The above numbered Declaration is hereby amended, effective 
November 14, 1995 to extend the termination date for filing 
applications for physical damage until December 15, 1995. The 
termination date for economic injury remains the same, June 17, 1995, 
at the previously designated location.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 59002 and 
59008)

    Dated: December 7, 1995.
Bernard Kulik,
Associate Administrator for Disaster Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-30448 Filed 12-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
Exhibit 10.14  NOTICE OF GRANT OF STOCK OPTIONS
  Vitesse Semiconductor CorporationAND OPTION AGREEMENT
  ID:  77-0138960  Employee
  Name
  Grant
  Number:
  XXXAddress
  Plan:
  2001ID:
  XXXXXXX  You
(Optionee) have been granted a Stock Option (Option) to purchase Common
Stock of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (the Company), subject to the
terms and conditions of the Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation Amended and
Restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan (the Plan) and this Stock Option Agreement
as set forth below.  Date
  of Grant:Total
  Shares Granted:Exercise
  Price per Share:
  $Type
  of Option:
  Non-Qualified Stock
  OptionExpiration
  Date:  This Option shall be exercisable, in whole or in part, according to the
following vest schedule:   The
exercise of this Option shall be conditioned upon the following:  [(i)
  at
  least one year and one day has passed since the grant of this Option;(ii)
  the
  filing by the Company of a registration statement on Form S-8 with the
  SEC to register the offer and sale of the common stock underlying this
  Option; and(iii)
  the
  common stock underlying this Option is listed on the NASDAQ Stock Market or
  such other national securities exchange as described in Section 18 of
  the Securities Act of 1933 or in Rule 146 promulgated thereunder.]  This
Option may be exercised for a period of thirty (30) days after termination of
employment from the Company or such longer period as may be applicable upon
Death or Total and Permanent Disability of the Optionee, or by other written
agreement with the Company, according to the terms and conditions of the Plan,
but in no event after the Expiration Date set forth above.  By
your online acceptance of this Option you and the Company agree that this
Option is granted under and governed by the terms and conditions of the
Companys Amended and Restated 2001 Stock Incentive Plan, as posted on ETRADE
as of the date of this Option Agreement, which is incorporated herein by
reference, and this Option Agreement.  Vitesse
  Semiconductor Corp.By:Title:
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

United States Space Command

USSPACECOM

                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 
                - 

Search

Search
Search

-  Home		 
-  About    -  Mission         
  -  Warfighting Units         
  -  Frequently Asked Questions         
  -  Strategic Vision         
  -  Emblem 
-  Leaders    -  Commander         
  -  Deputy Commander         
  -  Command Senior Enlisted Leader         
  -  Chief of Staff 
-  Support    -  Inspector General         
  -  FOIA      -  Making a FOIA Request         
    -  Reading Room 
  -  Equal Opportunity Coordinator         
  -  Sexual Assault Prevention and Response Victim Advocate         
  -  Command Chaplain         
  -  Commandant         
  -  Resilience Program 
-  Newsroom    -  News      -  FY2025 Testimony 
  -  Photos and Videos         
  -  Speeches         
  -  Publications 
-  Contact		 
-  Partnerships and Outreach    -  Academic Engagement Enterprise      -  AEE Articles of Interest         
    -  AEE Members         
    -  AEE Multimedia         
    -  AEE Research Library 
  -  Careers      -  Civilians         
    -  Internships 
  -  Industry Engagement Portal 
-  Newcomers    -  Newcomer Information         
  -  Checking In 

# PHOTOS ANDVIDEOS

Search

Search

                                - All Images 
                                - Other 
                                - Space Shuttle 

                                - Upload Date
                                - Photo Date
                                - Title

----

Download Image: Full Size (6.25 MB)

Tags:

Photo by:VIRIN: 

Photo Gallery
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM THE UNIVERSAL BEVERAGES HOLDINGS CORPORATION. FORM 10-QSB FOR
THE SIX MONTHS ENDED JUNE 30, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                         1,312,911
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  173,174
<ALLOWANCES>                                   15,178
<INVENTORY>                                    503,473
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               2,143,304
<PP&E>                                         5,536,671
<DEPRECIATION>                                 326,032
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 8,096,571
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          2,188,075
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    6,871
<COMMON>                                       7,776
<OTHER-SE>                                     5,874,057
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   8,096,571
<SALES>                                        1,177,062
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1,177,062
<CGS>                                          970,070
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  970,070
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               1,257,031
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             11,383
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (766,563)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (766,563)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (766,563)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                453,488
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (313,075)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.05)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.05)


</TABLE>
[Chase Logo] **SUBSERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT**RE: J.P. Morgan Mortgage Trust 2007-Al Mortgage Pass-Through Certificates: This Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of January 1, 2007 (the "Agreement"), by and among J.P. Morgan Acceptance Corporation I, a Delaware corporation, as depositor (the "Depositor"), HSBC Bank USA, National Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and U.S. Bank National Association, in its dual capacities as master servicer (the "Master Servicer") and securities administrator (the "Securities Administrator"), and acknowledged by J.P. Morgan Mortgage Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation, as seller (the "Seller"), for purposes of Sections 2.04 and 2.05 and JPMorgan Chase Bank, National Association, a national banking association, as custodian (the "Custodian"), for purposes of Sections 11.01, 11.02, 11.03, 11.06, 11.07, 11.09 and 12.16 The undersigned, each a duly authorized officer of Chase Home Finance LLC ("CHF"), do hereby certify that: (1)CHF is a Subservicer under the Agreement (2)A review of the activities of CHF during the calendar year ending  December 31, 2007 and of the performance of CHF under the Agreement has been made under our supervision; and (3)To the best of our knowledge, based on such review, CHF has fulfilled all its obligations under the Agreement in all material respects throughout such year. Capitalized terms used but not defined herein shall have the meanings assigned in the Agreement. Date: 02/28/2008 Chase Home Finance LLC, as Subservicer By: /s/ Kim Greaves   Name: Kim GreavesTitle: Senior Vice President  Servicing Manager By: /s/ Jim Miller Name: Jim Miller Title: Senior Vice President  Default Servicing Manager
Exhibit 32.1

Certification of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer  Pursuant to  18 U.S.C. Section 1350  as Adopted Pursuant to  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002

I, Christopher R. Gardner, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the
financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation.

December 11, 2009By:

/s/ CHRISTOPHER R. GARDNER Christopher R. Gardner Chief Executive Officer


I,
Richard C. Yonker, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Annual Report of Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results of operations of Vitesse
Semiconductor Corporation.

December 11, 2009By:

/s/ RICHARD C. YONKER Richard C. Yonker Chief Financial Officer


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

---



QuickLinks
#### F. G. DANIELS and WILLIE LEE DANIELS v. MONTGOMERY WARD & COMPANY.

(Filed 8 June, 1940.)

Negligence § 16—

Allegations that defendant sold a defective gasoline and kerosene stove to a customer who advised defendant that he was familiar with the mechanism of the stove and thought he could repair same so that it might be safe for use, that some time thereafter the stove exploded in the customer’s apartment causing fire which spread to plaintiff’s apartment, without allegation of any specific defect in the stove proximately causing the damage alleged, *is held*insufficient to state a cause of action.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Harris, J.,*at October Civil Term, 1939, of Dubham.

Civil action for recovery of damages resulting from alleged actionable negligence.

The complaint of plaintiff alleges, briefly stated, that some time during the latter part of September, 1938, defendant sold a preway, coraflame gasoline and kerosene stove to one B. E. Riggs, and delivered same to him at his apartment adjacent to that occupied by plaintiffs; that defendant knew and advised Riggs that there was some defect in the stove; that Riggs advised defendant that he, himself, was familiar with the mechanism of the stove and thought he could repair same so that it might be safe for use; that defendant sold and delivered the stove to Riggs and same was used by his family for a short time; that on 1 October, 1938, when the wife of Riggs undertook to light the stove to heat water, it exploded and ignited the Riggs apartment and the fire later spread to that occupied by plaintiffs, burning their clothes and personal effects; that though defendant knew, or by the exercise of ordinary care should have known, that the stove would likely explode and cause such injury and damage, it negligently offered same for sale and sold it for use by Riggs and his family, as the proximate result of which plaintiffs have been damaged.

Defendant demurred to the complaint for that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in that, *inter alia,*it does not allege any specific defect in the stove for which defendant might be liable and which is the proximate cause of the alleged damage to property of plaintiffs.

From judgment sustaining demurrer plaintiffs appeal to Supreme Court, and assign error.

*769*Forrest A. Pollarcl and Fuller, Beade, Umstead & Fuller for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Victor 8. Bryant and John D. McConnell for defendant, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

Admitting the truth of the allegations of fact contained in the complaint, and relevant inference of fact necessarily deducible therefrom, as we must do in testing the sufficiency thereof, we concur with the ruling below that a cause of action is not stated.

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7326
In Re: AMIL ALFRED DINSIO, SR.; JAMES F. DINSIO, Petitioners. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (3:92-cr-00155-FDW) Submitted: October 18, 2007 Decided: October 26, 2007 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and KING, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Amil Alfred Dinsio, Sr., James F. Dinsio, Petitioners Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.- 2 - PER CURIAM: Amil Alfred Dinsio, Sr., and James F. Dinsio petition for a writ of mandamus seeking an order directing the district court to recall the detainer lodged against them for a supervised release violation. We conclude that they are not entitled to mandamus relief. Mandamus relief is available only when a petitioner has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass’n , 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court , 426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard , 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th Cir. 1987). The relief sought by Amil and James Dinsio is not available by way of mandamus. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma paup eris, we deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
#### The People of the State of New York *ex rel.*Isaac W. Peck, Appellant, v. The Same, Respondents.

Order quashing writ affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Dykman, J.;

Pratt J., not sitting
#### MRS. ELLA OWEN v. HENRY S. GATES.

(Filed 14 January, 1955.)

Wills § 33g—

The will provided “I give my home and the balance of my land to my darter Ella for her to hold and have her lifetime.” *Meld:*In the absence of other provision evidencing an intent to the contrary, the plain and unambiguous language limits the estate devised to a life estate, and the devisee cannot convey the fee.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Moore, J.,*October Term 1954, PeesoN.

Affirmed.

Controversy without action under G.S. 1-220.

Plaintiff contracted to sell to defendant the land she took under ber father’s will and to convey to him a fee simple title thereto by deed containing full covenants of warranty. Defendant declined to accept deed for tbe reason plaintiff did not own and could not convey a fee simple title to said land. Thereupon, tbis proceeding was instituted to have tbe court adjudicate tbe respective rights of tbe parties.

Tbe testator, plaintiff’s father, died seized of tbe land in controversy. His will contains tbe following provision:

“1. I leave my property to Be equally divided amonst my three children . . . i lean all of my land to my widow for ber to have tbe Benefit of it so long as she is my widow and when she ceases to Be my widow I want it equel divied amonst my three children.”

In paragraphs 2 and 3 be devised specified tracts of land to bis son and to bis oldest daughter and ber husband. Paragraph 4 is as follows:

“4. I give my home and tbe balance of my land to my darter Ella for ber to bold and have ber lifetime.”

*408Tbe court below concluded tbat plaintiff took a life estate only in tbe land devised to ber and signed judgment denying plaintiff’s prayer for specific performance. Plaintiff excepted and appealed.

*Davis & Davis for plaintiff' appellant.*

*Burns & Dong and Charles B. Wood, for defendant appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The language used by the testator in paragraph 4 of bis will is clear and unambiguous. There is no room for construction. What prompted the testator to limit the estate devised to plaintiff to an estate for life we do not know. Even so, this be did in language which cannot be misunderstood, and there is no other provision in the will evidencing an intent to the contrary. We must, therefore, accept the will as the testator made it.

Tbe judgment entered in tbe court below is

Affirmed.
FILED

February 27, 1998

Cecil Crowson, Jr.

Appellate C ourt Clerk

COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT KNOXVILLE

JOHN WAYNE SLATE, SR. ) SEVIER COUNTY

) 03A01-9708-CV-00369

 Petitioner-Appellant )

)

)

v . ) HON. CHESTER RAINWATER, JR.,

 ) CHANCELLOR

) 

STATE OF TENNESSEE, et al. )

 )

Defendants-Appellees ) AFFIRMED AND REMANDED

JOHN WAYNE SLATE, SR., Pro Se

JOHN KNOX WALKUP, Attorney General and Reporter, and DAVID T.

WHITEFIELD, Senior Counsel, Civil Rights and Claims Division,

Nashville, For Appellees

 O P I N I O N

 Goddard, P.J. 

John Wayne Slate, Sr., who is incarcerated in a penal

institution of this State, appearing pro s e , appeals a judgment

of the Chancery Court for Sevier County, which dismissed his

complaint (which is styled a motion) seeking disbarment of

Circuit Judge Ben Hooper and Attorney General Al Schmutzer, Jr. 
1

In Ex parte Chattanooga Bar Association , 566 S.W.2d 880

(Tenn.1978), our Supreme Court held that the provisions of T.C.A. 23-3-202,

insofar as they address disciplinary proceedings against attorneys, had been

superseded by Rule 42 of the Supreme Court, which is the predecessor to Rule

9 .

2

The Chancellor dismissed the complaint on the ground

that proceedings to disbar an attorney must be pursuant to Rule 9

of the Supreme Court, rather than T.C.A. 23-3-202, 1 as alleged in

the complaint. 

Mr. Slate appeals contending that the Trial Court was

in error in this regard and was also in error in not granting his

motion to strike the date of the hearing because he could not be

present. 

Our review of the record and the briefs of the parties

persuade us this is an appropriate case for affirmance under Rule

10(a) of this Court.

For the foregoing reason the judgment of the Trial

Court is affirmed and the cause remanded for collection of costs

below. Costs of appeal are adjudged against Mr. Slate.

_______________________________

Houston M. Goddard, P.J. 
3

CONCUR:

________________________________

Herschel P. Franks, J.

________________________________

Don T. McMurray, J.
JUDITH ANN DONOVAN, FORMER WIFE , Appellant /Cross

- Appellee ,

v. JOHN CHARLES DONOVAN, III, FORMER HUSBAND , Appellee /Cross

- Appellant

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA
NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED
CASE NO. 1D 15

- 3885

_____________________________/ Opinion filed August 9, 2016. An appeal fr om the Circuit Court for Okaloosa County

. John "Jay" Gontarek , Judge

. Michael T. Webster and E. Jane Brehany , Pensacola, for Appellant /Cross

- Appellee

. R. Stan Peeler , of Peeler Law Firm, P.C., Pensacola, for Appellee /Cross

- Appellant ,

PER CURIAM. The parties have raised a number of issues, all of which we affirm, writ ing only to explain why affirmance is appropriate on the trial court’s order that reduced the former husband’s alimony payment to zero based on changed circumstances. The
f

ormer w ife , who argued that the modification of alimony was erroneous, argued2 that even if a reduction of alimony was proper , we should remand and require the trial court to enter an award of a nominal amount of permanent alimony to preserve jurisdiction in case of change d circumstances in the future. But the trial court has explicitly said that it “retains jurisdiction to enter whatever other orders which may be required , ” which would include situations where changed circumstances might support an increase in awarded alim ony. Although a nominal award of alimony preserves the trial court’s jurisdiction to revisit the matter in the future, entry of a nominal alimony award in this case was not necessary because juri sdiction was already retained. Winder v. Winder , 152 So. 3d 8 36, 841 (Fla. 1st DCA 2014).
AFFIRMED.
ROWE , MAKAR , and BILBREY , J J

. , CONCUR.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7353 RICKEY R. LLOYD, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus RICK JACKSON; HERB JACKSON; DON EDWARDS; MRS. CUMMINGS; MAILROOM OFFICER; BROWN CREEK CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, Defendants - Appellees.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at Charlotte. Graham C. Mullen, District Judge. (CA-97-160-3-MU) Submitted: February 26, 1998 Decided: March 18, 1998 Before WILKINS, NIEMEYER, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Rickey R. Lloyd, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the recordand the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. See Lloyd v. Jackson , No. CA-97-160-3-MU (W.D.N.C. Aug. 29, 1997). We dispense withoral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 5628 

To prohibit accessing pornographic web sites from Federal computers, and 

for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 

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

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

A BILL 

To prohibit accessing pornographic web sites from Federal 

computers, 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 ‘‘Eliminating Pornog5 raphy from Agencies Act’’. 

6 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON ACCESSING PORNOGRAPHIC WEB 

7 SITES FROM FEDERAL COMPUTERS. 

8 (a) PROHIBITION.—Except as provided in subsection 

9 (b), not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment 

10 of this Act, the Director of the Office of Management and 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 5628 IH

1 Budget shall issue guidelines that prohibit the access of 

2 a pornographic or other explicit web site from a Federal 

3 computer. 

4 (b) EXCEPTION.—The prohibition described in sub5 section (a) shall not apply to any Federal computer that 

6 is used for an investigative purpose that requires accessing 

7 a pornographic web site. 

Æ 


SSpencer on DSK4SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
#### Charles W. Osborn, Appellant, v. Nicholas P. Randall, Respondent.

Judgment and order affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Hardin, P. J.