alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7546]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02882]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Food and Drug Administration

[Docket No. FDA-2012-N-0114]


Agency Information Collection Activities; Announcement of Office 
of Management and Budget Approval; Request for Samples and Protocols

AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a 
collection of information entitled ``Request for Samples and 
Protocols'' has been approved by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FDA PRA Staff, Office of Operations, 
Food and Drug Administration, 8455 Colesville Rd., COLE-14526, Silver 
Spring, MD 20993-0002, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#83d3d1c2d0f7e2e5e5c3e5e7e2adebebf0ade4ecf5"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d787859684a3b6b1b197b1b3b6f9bfbfa4f9b0b8a1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On September 24, 2015, the Agency submitted 
a proposed collection of information entitled ``Request for Samples and 
Protocols'' to OMB for review and clearance under 44 U.S.C. 3507. An 
Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to 
respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. OMB has now approved the information 
collection and has assigned OMB control number 0910-0206. The approval 
expires on December 31, 2018. A copy of the supporting statement for 
this information collection is available on the Internet at http://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain.

    Dated: February 8, 2016.
Leslie Kux,
Associate Commissioner for Policy.
[FR Doc. 2016-02882 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4164-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**











**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**


We
          consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
          on
          Forms S-3 (No. 333-106608, No. 333-108924, No. 333-10754, No. 333-110752,
          No.
          333-82496, No. 333-91225, No. 333-91235, No. 333-17105, No. 333-122391,
          No.
          333-122392 and No. 333-132048) and Forms S-8 (No. 333-109595 and No. 333-82410)
          of SpatiaLight, Inc. of our reports dated March 6, 2006 relating to the
          consolidated financial statements of SpatiaLight, Inc. (which report expresses
          an unqualified opinion and includes a matter of emphasis paragraph relating
          to
          the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern), SpatiaLight, Inc.
          management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial
          reporting, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting
          of
          SpatiaLight, Inc., included in this Annual Report on Form  10-K/A for the
          year ended December 31, 2005.
 
 
 
 ODENBERG,
          ULLAKKO, MURANISHI & CO. LLP
 
 San
          Francisco, California
 April
          10, 2006




82
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% 1.55% 2.98% -0.15% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

July 16, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA)

Proposed Provision: For each year from 2009-2039, multiply the 32 and 15 percent formula reducing the factors to 21 percent and 10 percent respectively, for new eligibles in 2039 an

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

   We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
   Statements (Form S-8) pertaining to the Advantage Bancorp, Inc. 1991 Stock
   Option and Incentive Plan, the Amity Bancshares, Inc. Stock Option Plan
   and Incentive Plan, the Advantage Bancorp, Inc. Employees' Profit Sharing
   and Savings Retirement Plan, the Advantage Bancorp, Inc. 1996 Non-Employee
   Director Stock Option Plan and the Advantage Bancorp, Inc. 1995 Equity
   Incentive Plan, of our report dated October 31, 1997, with respect to the
   consolidated financial statements of Advantage Bancorp, Inc. incorporated
   by reference in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended September
   30, 1997

                                 /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                 Ernst & Young LLP

   December 3, 1997
   Milwaukee, Wisconsin
#### MEMORIAL HOSPITAL v. ROCKINGHAM COUNTY.

(Filed 27 January, 1937.)

Appeal and Error § 52—

Where the judgment entered by the court after waiver of trial by jury does not contain sufficient facts to enable the Supreme Court to decide the question of law sought to be determined, the case will be remanded.

Appeal by plaintiff: from *Shaw, Emergency Judge,*at September Term, 1936, of RocxiNGHAM.

Civil action to determine liability of plaintiff’s predecessor in title, Ann Penn Memorial Hospital, for *ad valorem*taxes assessed in 1931.

Upon tbe bearing, a jury trial was waived and tbe parties agreed to submit tbe facts and tbe law to tbe court for determination.

Tbe judgment recites that after bearing tbe cause “upon pleadings, admissions, evidence, and argument of counsel,” tbe court being of *206opinion that the hospital referred to in the pleadings was “not exempt from taxation,” entered judgment accordingly, from which the plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*D. F. Mayberry and Hunter K. Penn for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Brown & Trotter for defendant, appellee.*

Stacy, C. J.

We deem it inadvisable to make final disposition of the question sought to be presented, because the record is barren of any factual determination. It was agreed that this should be done by the court, but in drawing the judgment, which was evidently prepared by counsel, the factual basis of the judgment was omitted. A finding of the facts is desirable in order that we may determine the question of law or legal inference which the parties wish decided. *Refining Co. v. McKernan,*178 N. C., 82, 100 S. E., 121; *Trust Co. v. Transit Lines,*198 N. C., 675, 153 S. E., 158; *S. c.,*200 N. C., 415, 157 S. E., 62, and cases there cited. To this end, the judgment will be vacated and the cause remanded to the Superior Court of Rockingham County for further proceedings as to justice appertains and the rights of the parties may require.

Error and remanded.
July 15, 2014



### JUDGMENT


## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

KEN OKORIE AND LINDA OKORIE , Appellant s

NO. 14

- 14

- 00189

- CV V.

OCWEN LOAN SERVICING , LLC

, Appellee

________________________________ Today the Court heard appellant s ’ motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment signed by the court below on January 6, 2014. Having considered the motion and found it meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED

. We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by appellant s , Ken Okorie and Linda Okorie. We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
<PAGE>

                                                                 EXHIBIT 99.1

                          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 Forever Enterprises, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2002 (the
"Report"), I, Brent D. Cassity, Chief Executive 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, to the best of my knowledge and
belief, 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 the Report fairly
                   presents, in all material respects, the financial
                   condition and results of operations of the Company.


                          /s/ Brent D. Cassity
                          ----------------------------------------------------
                          Chief Executive Officer of Forever Enterprises, Inc.
                          November 14, 2002


     This certificate accompanies the Report pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes
of Section 18 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
#### EFFIE DAIL, J. I. SPARROW, WILLIE SPARROW, JAMES SPARROW, EUGENE SPARROW and LEONE CADE v. G. H. SPARROW and Wife, CORA LEE SPARROW (Alias CORA REA SPARROW).

(Filed 2 November, 1955.)

Trial §§'45, 51—

Where the theory of the trial is confined solely to the single issue whether the deed in question was invalid for want of mental capacity of grantor to execute it, motions after verdict to set aside the verdict as a matter of law and for judgment *non obstante veredicto*on the ground that the deed was invalid because it was not executed according to the formalities of law, are properly denied, the grounds for the motions being at variance with the theory of trial and being unsupported by allegation.

*72Appeal by plaintiffs from *Parker, J.,*and a jury, at 16 May, 1955, Term of LeNOIR.

Civil action tried below on this issue: “Did J. R. Sparrow have sufficient mental capacity to execute the deed dated December 2, 1949, to his son G. H. Sparrow and his daughter-in-law, Cora Rea Sparrow? Answer: Yes.”

The plaintiffs moved the court to set the verdict aside as a matter of law, on the ground that the deed to the defendants, introduced in evidence by the defendants and relied on by them, is void upon its face. Motion overruled. Exception No. 1.

The plaintiffs then moved the court for judgment *non obstante vere-dicto.*Motion overruled. Exception No. 2.

From judgment entered upon the verdict decreeing that the deed is valid and that the defendants are the owners in fee of the lands described therein, the plaintiffs appeal.

*Sutton ■& Greene for plaintiffs, appellants.*

*Jones, Reed & Griffin for defendants, appellees.*

PER Curiam.

The questions presented by this appeal relate to the denial of the plaintiffs’ motions made after verdict. By these motions, the plaintiffs sought to have the trial court declare the deed void on the ground that it was not executed according to the formalities of law.

The question whether the grantor executed the deed according to the formalities of law was not raised by the pleadings, nor was any issue in respect thereto tendered by the plaintiffs. On the contrary, the case was tried upon the single issue of mental capacity of the grantor. The attempt to raise this new question, which was at variance with the theory of the trial and unsupported by allegation, came too late after verdict, and consequently the rulings of the lower court on the motions will be sustained on procedural grounds. However, the deed, when examined in the light of the plaintiffs’ challenge, appears to have been executed in substantial compliance with the formalities of law. The deed is sufficient in form to convey title.

The verdict of the jury supports the judgment entered below.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 29 (Friday, February 12, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7630]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02883]



[[Page 7630]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


West Los Angeles VA Medical Center; Draft Master Plan

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Notice--Correction.

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

SUMMARY: On February 2, 2016, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
published a notice in the Federal Register announcing publication of 
the Draft Master Plan for the West Los Angeles Department of Veterans 
Affairs campus. That notice contained language that we are now 
clarifying.

DATES: These corrections will be effective as of February 12, 2016.

Correction

    The notice VA published in the Federal Register on February 2, 2016 
(81 FR 552), stated on page 5526, in the third column:

    ``The proposed timeline involves developing 60 units within the 
next 12 months, 150 units over the next 24 to 30 months, 280 units 
over the next 30 months, 280 units over the next 4 to 5 years, and 
430 units over the next 6 to 10 years--all totaling 1,200 units.''

    As a clarification, that sentence is being replaced with the 
following sentence:

    ``Specifically, after legislative enactment, the proposed 
timeline involves developing 490 units within the first 30 months, 
280 additional units within 4 to 5 years, and 430 additional units 
within 6 to 10 years--all totaling 1,200 units.''

    Dated: February 9, 2016.
William F. Russo,
Office of the General Counsel, US Department of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. 2016-02883 Filed 2-11-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
##### 



Exhibit 32.1

INTERSTATE HOTELS & RESORTS, INC.
SARBANES-OXLEY ACT SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS

In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Interstate Hotels &
Resorts, Inc. (the Registrant) for the period ended June 30, 2003, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report),
I, Paul W. Whetsell, Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 the Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
the Registrant.

Dated: August 12, 2003



| | /s/ Paul W. Whetsell
Paul W. Whetsell
Chief Executive Officer
| | -------------------------------------------------------------
#### JAMES LOVETT SMITH v. L. R. POWELL, JR., and E. W. SMITH, Receivers of SEABOARD AIR LINE RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 18 September, 1935.)

Appeal and Error J d—

Where the Supreme Court is evenly divided in opinion, one Justice not sitting, the judgment of the lower court will be affirmed without becoming a precedent.

Appeal by defendants from *Frizzelle, J.,*at February Term, 1935, of Columbus.

Civil action to recover damages for loss of plaintiff’s right foot, it being alleged that the injury complained of was caused by the neglect or default of the defendants.

The usual issues of negligence, contributory negligence, last clear chance, and damages were submitted to the jury and answered in favor of the plaintiff. Defendants appeal, assigning errors. ,

*Lyon <& Lyon and B. H. Burns & Son for plaintiff.*

*E. M. Toon and J ohn D. Bellamy & Sons for defendants.*

Pee Cueiam.

The Court being evenly divided in opinion, *Clarkson, J.,*not sitting, the judgment of the Superior Court is affirmed in accordance with the usual practice of appellate courts, and stands as the decision in this case without becoming a precedent. *Durham v. Lloyd,*200 N. C., 803, 157 S. E., 136; *Nebel v. Nebel,*201 N. C., 840, 161 S. E., 223.

Affirmed.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Elizabeth A. Weaver

Maura D. Corrigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2010 

p0621 

Order 

 

June 28, 2010 

140587 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 140587 

 COA: 293950 

Wayne CC: 02-008338 02 

BOBBY ORICK, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 11, 2010 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

| www.socialsecurity.gov | Home  FAQs  Contact Us  Search | **Search**  |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------------------------------|------------------|

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and GraphsUpdated May 3, 2006   |
|---------------------|-------------------------------------------------------|

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with individuals newly eligible for OASI benefits in 2012.  Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earners.  Maintain current-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formula factors (32% and 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in average wages.  Disability benefits are not affected by the proposal.  Disabled worker beneficiaries, upon attaining normal retirement age, would be subject to a proportional reduction in benefits based on the worker's years of disability. |
|---------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2005 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 36 (Thursday, February 23, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10141]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4433]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee Meeting on Airport 
Certification Issues

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is issuing this notice to advise the public of a 
meeting of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation Rulemaking 
Advisory Committee to discuss airport certification issues.

DATES: The meeting will be held on March 2, 1995, at 10:00 a.m. Arrange 
for oral presentations by February 21, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at FAA Headquarters, Conference 
Room 600E, 6th Floor, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Marisa Mullen, Federal Aviation Administration, Office of 
Rulemaking (ARM-205), 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 
20591, telephone (202) 267-9781; fax (202) 267-5075.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to Sec. 10(a)(2) of the Federal 
Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463; 5 U.S.C. App. II), notice is 
hereby given of a meeting of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee 
to be held on March 2, 1995, at FAA Headquarters, Conference Room 600E, 
6th Floor, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. The 
agenda will include.
    <bullet> Committee administration.
    <bullet> Review and Dispose Working Group Work plan.
    <bullet> Discuss proposed new task to extend 14 CFR part 139 
(airport certification) to airports served by scheduled commercial air 
carriers with 10 to 30 seats.
    <bullet> A discussion of future meeting dates, locations, 
activities, and plans.
    Attendance is open to the interested public, but will be limited to 
the space available. The public must make arrangements by February 21, 
1995, to present oral statements at the meeting. The public may present 
written statements to the committee at any time by providing 25 copies 
to the Executive Director, or by bringing the copies to the meeting. In 
addition, sign and oral interpretation can be made available at the 
meeting, as well as an assistive listening device, if requested 10 
calendar days before the meeting. Arrangements may be made by 
contacting the person listed under the heading FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on February 16, 1995.
Robert E. David,
Assistant Executive Director for Airport Certification Issues, Aviation 
Rulemaking Advisory Committee.
[FR Doc. 95-4433 Filed 2-22-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-3-M
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable)

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						E2.5: Apply 12.4 percent payroll tax rate on earnings above $250,000 starting in 2024, and tax all earnings once the current-law taxable maximum exceeds $250,000. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates
## Detailed Single Year Tables

- Individual Provisions
- Coverage of Employment or Earnings, or Inclusion of Other Sources of Revenue

### **Description of Proposed Provision:						F4: Expand covered earnings to include contributions to voluntary salary reduction plans (such as Cafeteria 125 plans and Flexible Spending Accounts). Starting in 2024, subject these contributions to the OASDI payroll tax, making the payroll tax treatment of these contributions like 401(k) contributions.**

### Financial Estimates for the OASDI Trust Fund Program

### Summarized Estimates