alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 38 (Monday, February 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 10533-10534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4696]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-25, RM-8588]


Radio Broadcasting Services; Waldport, Oregon

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission requests comments on a petition filed by Jarvis 
Communications, Inc., seeking the allotment of Channel 288A to 
Waldport, OR, as the community's first local FM service. Channel 288A 
can be allotted to Waldport in compliance with the Commission's minimum 
distance separation requirements with a site restriction of 12.4 
kilometers (7.7 miles) northwest, at coordinates 44-32-17 North 
Latitude and 124-03-37 West Longitude, to avoid a short-spacing to 
vacant but applied-for Channel 288A at Cottage Grove, OR.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or before April 14, 1995, and reply 
comments on or before May 1, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. 
In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties should 
serve the petitioner, or its counsel or consultant, as follows: Matt 
Jarvis, Jarvis Communications, Inc., Radio Station KORC-AM, P.O. Box 
1419, Waldport, OR 97394 (Petitioner).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

[[Page 10534]] SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the 
Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 95-25, 
adopted February 9, 1995, and released February 21, 1995. The full text 
of this Commission decision is available for inspection and copying 
during normal business hours in the FCC Reference Center (Room 239), 
1919 M Street, NW, Washington, D.C. The complete text of this decision 
may also be purchased from the Commission's copy contractor, 
International Transcription Services, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M 
Street, NW, Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037.
    Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply 
to this proceeding.
    Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of 
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to 
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are 
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve 
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing 
permissible ex parte contacts.
    For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, 
see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Radio broadcasting.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 95-4696 Filed 2-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
EXHIBIT 31.1
 Certification of Chief Executive Officer
Pursuant to Section 302 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-K of Abaxis, Inc.;2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and we have:
     5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent
evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrants auditors and the
audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
   Date: June 14, 2010
    /s/ Clinton H. SeversonClinton H. SeversonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 34 (Tuesday, February 21, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 9678]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4150]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. RP95-120-000]


NorAm Gas Transmission Co.; Notice of Technical Conference

February 15, 1995.
    In the Commission's order issued February 2, 1995, the Commission 
held that the filing in the above captioned proceeding raises issues 
that should be addressed in a technical conference.
    Take notice that the technical conference will be held on Tuesday, 
February 28, 1995, at 10:00 a.m., in a room to be designated at the 
offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 810 First Street, 
N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426. All interested parties and Staff are 
permitted to attend.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4150 Filed 2-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

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

| Solvency provisions | Summary Measures and Graphs |
|---------------------|-----------------------------|

| Payroll Taxes (including maximum taxable) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Apply the following payroll tax rates above the current-law taxable maximum, with no credit toward benefits: 2.0 percent in 2012, 3.0 percent in 2025, 3.5 percent in 2040, 4.5 percent in 2050, and 5.5 percent in 2060. |
|-------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                           |

*Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions        of the 2009 Trustees Report*

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified January 28, 2010 |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>            5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
condensed consolidated balance sheets and the condensed, consolidated
statements of operations of Forever Enterprises, Inc. filed as part
of Forever Enterprises, Inc.'s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the
quarter ended June 30, 2000, and is qualified in its entirety by
reference to such report.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                      24,482,701
<SECURITIES>                                83,430,659
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,487,016
<ALLOWANCES>                                    11,117
<INVENTORY>                                    253,946
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           129,373,379
<PP&E>                                       7,337,999
<DEPRECIATION>                                 989,947
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             170,161,568
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,561,897
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                        69,247
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,443,198
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               170,161,568
<SALES>                                     22,125,849
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            28,267,562
<CGS>                                          357,590
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               30,181,360
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                61,851
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              94,311
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,851,947)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  (330,562)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,521,385)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,521,385)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.22)


</TABLE>
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% 1.36% 4.13% -0.34% 

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: Progressive price indexing of PIA formula factors beginning with indivieligible for OASDI benefits in 2015. Create new bend point at the 30th percentile of earnercurrent-law benefits for earners at the 30th percentile and below and reduce upper 2 formuand 15%) such that maximum worker benefit grows by inflation rather than the growth in av

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
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 17-4447

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

MATTHEW JOSEPH KELLEY,

 Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at 

Anderson. Timothy M. Cain, District Judge. (8:16-cr-00699-TMC-1)

Submitted: December 12, 2017 Decided: December 13, 2017

Before WILKINSON, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Benjamin T. Stepp, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greenville, South Carolina, for 

Appellant. Maxwell B. Cauthen, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South 

Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Matthew Joseph Kelley pled guilty without a written plea agreement to possession 

of an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. §§ 5841, 5861(d) (2012), and was 

sentenced to 46 months in prison. Kelley appeals. His attorney has filed a brief in 

accordance with Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), questioning whether the 

sentence is reasonable but stating that there are no meritorious issues for appeal. Kelley 

was advised of his right to file a pro se brief but has not filed such a brief. We affirm.

We first conclude that Kelley’s guilty plea was knowing and voluntary. Kelley 

stated at the Fed. R. Crim. P. 11 hearing that he was not under the influence of drugs or 

alcohol, was 28 years old, had an eleventh-grade education, and understood the nature of 

the proceedings. He expressed complete satisfaction with his attorney’s services. A 

factual basis for the plea was presented to the court, Kelley stated that the factual basis 

was accurate, and he admitted his guilt. Finally, the district court complied with the 

requirements of Rule 11. 

With respect to sentencing, the court properly calculated Kelley’s Guidelines 

range, considered the 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a) (2012) sentencing factors and the arguments of 

the parties, and provided a sufficiently individualized assessment based on the facts of the 

case. We hold that the within-Guidelines sentence is procedurally and substantively 

reasonable. See Gall v. United States, 552 U.S. 38, 51 (2007); United States v. Carter, 

564 F.3d 325, 330 (4th Cir. 2009). 

Pursuant to Anders, we have reviewed the entire record and have found no 

meritorious issues for appeal. Accordingly, we affirm Kelley’s conviction and sentence. 
3

This court requires that counsel inform Kelley, in writing, of the right to petition the 

Supreme Court of the United States for further review. If Kelley requests that a petition 

be filed, but counsel believes that such a petition would be frivolous, then counsel may 

move in this court for leave to withdraw from representation. Counsel’s motion must 

state that a copy thereof was served on Kelley. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court 

and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
<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 Annual Report of Sholodge, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 29, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
Leon Moore, 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, 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.



/s/ Leon Moore
---------------------------------
Leon Moore
Chief Executive Officer


April 11, 2003
<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 Annual Report of Sholodge, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ending December 29, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on or about the date hereof (the "Report"),
Bob Marlowe, Chief 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:

         (3)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13
                  (a) or 15 (d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/  Bob Marlowe
--------------------------
Bob Marlowe
Chief Financial Officer


April 11, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 28 (Friday, February 10, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 8100]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3375]



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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
[Docket Nos. 50-498 and 50-499]


Houston Lighting and Power Company, City Public Service Board of 
San Antonio, Central Power and Light Company, City of Austin, Texas; 
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating 
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination, 
and Opportunity for a Hearing

    This document corrects a general notice appearing in the Federal 
Register on January 30, 1995 (60 FR 5739), in which the NRC is 
considering issuance of amendments to Facility Operating License Nos. 
NPF-76 and NPF-80, issued to Houston Lighting and Power Company, et 
al., for operation of the South Texas Project, Units 1 and 2, located 
in Matagorda County, Texas. This notice is necessary to correct an 
erroneous date.
    On page 5740, in the first sentence of the second full paragraph in 
the first column, the date ``February 14, 1995''.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 3rd day of February 1995.

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Thomas W. Alexion,
Project Manager, Project Directorate IV-1, Division of Reactor Projects 
III/IV; Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. 95-3375 Filed 2-9-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-M
Exhibit 32.1

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 26, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Richard E. Lundin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 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 Company.



/s/ Richard E. LundinRichard E. LundinChief Executive OfficerFebruary 24, 2009




68
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 20

- 7848

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,

v. JOSEPH THOMAS SMITH, a/k/a Joseph Smith , Defendant

- Appellant

.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia , at Richmond

. Henry E. Hudson , Senior District Judge. ( 3:10

- cr - 00199

- HEH

- 1 ; 3:20

- cv 00836

- HEH )

Submitted : July 20, 2021 Decided: July 22, 2021

Before WILKINSON, AGEE, and DIAZ , Circuit Judges.

Affirm ed by un published per curiam opinion

.
Joseph Thomas Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Joseph Thomas Smith appeal s the district cour t’s order construing his “Motion for
Administrative Review” as an unauthorized, succe ssive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion and dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction

. O ur review of the record confirms that the district court properly construed Smith’s filing as a successive § 2255 motion over which it lacked jurisdiction because Smith failed to obtain prefiling authorization from this court. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2244(b)(3)( A), 2255(h); United States v. McRae , 793 F.3d 392, 400 (4th Cir. 2015). Accordingly, we grant Smith’s motion to seal his informal brief and affirm the
district court’s order.
Consistent with our decision in United States v. Winestock , 340 F.3d 200, 208 (4th Cir. 2003), we construe Smith’s notice of appeal and informal brief as an application to file a second or successive § 2255 motion. Upon review, we conclude that Smith’s claims do
not meet the relevant standard. See 28 U.S.C. § 2255(h). We therefor e deny authorization to file a successive § 2255 motion. We dispense with oral argumen t because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRM ED
#### STATE v. EUGENE TATE.

(Filed 2 December, 1959.)

Appeal by defendant from *Crissman, J.,*13 April 1959 Criminal Term, of Guileobd, Greensboro Division.

Criminal prosecution on a bill of indictment charging the defendant in one count with the larceny of a samder of the value of $366.00, the property of Herman Adams; and in another count with receiving the said sander knowing it to have been stolen.

Plea: Not Guilty. Verdict: Guilty of larceny as charged in the bill of indictment.

From a judgment of imprisonment, defendant appeals.

*Malcolm B. Seawell, Attorney General, and Harry W. McGalliard Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*Martin & Whitley for defendant, appellant.*

Pee Cueiam.

All of defendant’s assignments of error are to the charge of the court to the jury. The court’s definition of the crime of larceny is in substantial accord with our decisions defining larceny. A careful reading of the charge in its entirety fails to show that the court implied or intimated an opinion in respect to the evidence. All of defendant’s assignments of error have been carefully considered, and are overruled. Defendant has failed to show prejudicial error in the charge that would justify a new trial.

No error.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-20552

Summary Calendar

CHARLES E. LUSK,

Plaintiff-Appellant

v.

CARLISIETTA R. WARNER, Sergeant, O.B. Ellis I Unit; ALICIA SCOTT,

Property Officer, O.B. Ellis I Unit,

Defendants-Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. 4:18-CV-831

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, ELROD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Charles E. Lusk, Texas prisoner # 1964427, has appealed the dismissal 

of his civil rights complaint. This court “must examine the basis of its 

jurisdiction, on its own motion, if necessary.” Mosley v. Cozby, 813 F.2d 659, 

660 (5th Cir. 1987). A timely notice of appeal in a civil case is a jurisdictional 

prerequisite when, as here, the time limit is set by statute. See Hamer v. 

 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 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 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 25, 2019

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 18-20552 Document: 00514930141 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/25/2019
No. 18-20552

2

Neighborhood Hous. Servs. of Chicago, 138 S. Ct. 13, 17 (2017); Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007); 28 U.S.C. § 2107(a). 

Lusk had to file a notice of appeal within 30 days of entry of the judgment 

on May 8, 2018. See § 2107(a); FED. R. APP. P. 4(a)(1)(A). Because Lusk filed 

his notice of appeal no earlier than August 2, 2018, his appeal is untimely, and 

this court lacks jurisdiction. See Hamer, 138 S. Ct. at 17. The appeal is 

DISMISSED.

 Case: 18-20552 Document: 00514930141 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/25/2019