alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
10470 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 37 / Friday, February 24, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs

Indian Gaming

ACTION: Notice of Approval for TribalState Compact.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 25 U.S.C. § 2710,

of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act of

1988 (Pub. L. 100–497), the Secretary of

the Interior shall publish, in the Federal

Register, notice of approved Tribal-State

Compacts for the purpose of engaging in

Class III (casino) gambling on Indian

reservations. The Assistant Secretary—

Indian Affairs, Department of the

Interior, through her delegated

authority, has approved the Tribal-State

Compact For Regulation of Class III

Gaming Between the Quileute Tribe and

the State of Washington, which was

executed on July 27, 1993.

DATES: This action is effective upon date

of publication.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Scrivner, Acting Director, Indian

Gaming Management Staff, Bureau of

Indian Affairs, Washington, D.C. 20240,

(202) 219–4068.

Dated: February 13, 1995.

Ada E. Deer,

Assistant Secretary, Indian Affairs.

[FR Doc. 95–4586 Filed 2–23–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–02
EXHIBIT 32.3

                            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 SteelCloud, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended January 31, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Kevin
Murphy, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.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 for the periods presented therein.




March 10, 2005                           By: /S/ KEVIN MURPHY
                                             ----------------
                                             Name: Kevin Murphy
                                             Title:Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8086]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03225]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[Docket ID FEMA-2016-0002; Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-B-1453]


Proposed Flood Hazard Determinations for St. Clair County, 
Alabama, and Incorporated Areas

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Proposed Notice; withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is withdrawing 
its proposed notice concerning proposed flood hazard determinations, 
which may include the addition or modification of any Base Flood 
Elevation, base flood depth, Special Flood Hazard Area boundary or zone 
designation, or regulatory floodway (herein after referred to as 
proposed flood hazard determinations) on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps 
and, where applicable, in the supporting Flood Insurance Study reports 
for St. Clair County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas.

DATES: This withdrawal is effective February 17, 2016.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by Docket No. FEMA-B-
1453, to Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering Management Branch, Federal 
Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Federal Emergency Management 
Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4064, or 
(email) <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#fcb089958fd2ae93988e959b899986cfbc9a99919dd298948fd29b938a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="561a233f2578043932243f3123332c651630333b3778323e2578313920">[email protected]</span></a>.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Luis Rodriguez, Chief, Engineering 
Management Branch, Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, 
Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW., Washington, DC 
20472, (202) 646-4064, or (email) <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1029352f720e33382e353b2939266f1c3a39313d7238342f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="83cff6eaf0add1ece7f1eae4f6e6f9b0c3e5e6eee2ade7ebf0ade4ecf5">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On December 11, 2014, FEMA published a 
proposed notice at 79 FR 73621, proposing flood hazard determinations 
for St. Clair County, Alabama, and Incorporated Areas. FEMA is 
withdrawing the proposed notice.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4104; 44 CFR 67.4.

    Date: January 22, 2016.
Roy E. Wright,
Deputy Associate Administrator for Insurance and Mitigation, Department 
of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency.
[FR Doc. 2016-03225 Filed 2-16-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 9110-12-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

 

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

 

I, Gregory Scott, certify that:

 

1.     I havereviewed this Form 10-Q of bebe stores, inc.;

 

2.     Based onmy knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.     Based onmy knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintainingdisclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e)and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

 

(a)     Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b)     Evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

(c)     Disclosed in this report any change to theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarterin the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.               The registrant’sother certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (orpersons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a)     All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)     Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 5, 2004 | /s/ Gregory Scott         |   |
|------------------------|---------------------------|--------|
|                   | Gregory Scott             |
|                   | *Chief Executive Officer* |

 

1

----
### Proposed Provision: E3.9. Beginning in 2031, apply 2 percent payroll tax rate on earnings over the wage-indexed equivalent of $200,000 in 2017 (about $348,300 in 2031), with the threshold wage-indexed after 2031. Do not provide benefit credit for additional earnings taxed.

back
#### May *v.*Allison, Appellant.

January 13, 1906:

*Negligence*— Automobiles—Negligent *driving.*

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained from collision with an automobile, a verdict and judgment for plaintiff will be sustained where it appears that at the time of the accident plaintiff was standing on the edge of a pavement with one foot on the curb, in the act of stepping upon the roadway, when the driver of an automobile, either through reckless mismanagement or through inexperience, drove his machine upon the curb and struck and injured the plaintiff.

Argued Oct. 25, 1905.

Appeal, No. 80, Oct. T., 1905, by defendant, from judgment of C. P. Northumberland Co., Dec. T., 1904, No. 3, on verdict for plaintiff in case of Joseph May v. W. M. Allison.

Before Rice, P. J., Beaver, Orlady, Porter, Morrison and Henderson, JJ.

Affirmed.

Trespass to recover damages for personal injuries. Before Savidge, P. J.

The opinion of the Superior Court states the case.

Verdict and judgment for plaintiff for $275. Defendant appealed.

*Error assigned*was in refusing binding instructions for defendant.

*Charles C. Lark,*with him *Fred. B. Moser,*for appellant.

*Charles M. Clement*and *William W. Ryon,*for appellee.

Opinion by

Orlady, J.,

The disputed facts in this case were properly referred to the jury under instructions which fairly and fully defined the rights and liabilities of the parties. That tribunal adopted the testimony of the plaintiff as the true version of the accident, and there is ample evidence in this record to justify the verdict. The plaintiff was fully corroborated by several disinterested witnesses, and upon no known rule of law would the court have been justified in directing a verdict for the defendant. ’ The injuries were received, as determined by the jury, *51while the plaintiff was yet upon the pavement, with one foot on the curb, and in the act of stepping upon the roadway, and were caused by the defendant’s reckless mismanagement of his automobile on the public street and highway, which was propelled with such disregard-for the safety of others, or to put it in a more favorable light, so operated by an inexperienced driver that it was driven or -forced upon the curb where the plaintiff was standing.

The record is free from any reversible error, and the judgment is affirmed.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23

The Board of Directors and Shareholders
PhyCor, Inc.


   
We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
PhyCor, Inc. on Form S-3 (No. 33-98528), Form S-4 (Nos. 33-66210, 33-98530,
333-45017, and 333-45209) and Form S-8 (Nos. 33-65228 and 33-85726) of our
reports dated February 18, 1998, relating to the consolidated balance sheets of
PhyCor, Inc. and subsidiaries as of December 31, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of income, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for
each of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 1997, and all
related schedules, which reports appear in the December 31, 1997 annual report
on Form 10-K, as amended by the annual report on Form 10 K/A, of PhyCor, Inc.
    


                                       /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP



   
Nashville, Tennessee
May 14, 1998
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-7465

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff – Appellee,

v.

HENRY EARL MILLER,

Defendant – Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry F. Floyd, District Judge. 

(6:06-cv-00548-HFF)

Submitted: March 16, 2010 Decided: March 17, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Henry Earl Miller, Appellant Pro Se. Elizabeth Jean Howard, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Greenville, South Carolina, 

for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

In February 2006, Henry Earl Miller filed in the 

district court a letter challenging his conviction and 300-month 

sentence imposed following his guilty plea to armed robbery, 

using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, and 

aiding and abetting in these offenses. The district court 

properly characterized this letter as a 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 

2006 & Supp. 2009) motion, and ultimately denied relief. Miller 

has since filed numerous motions in the district court seeking 

to reinstate his ability to file a § 2255 motion. 

Miller now appeals the district court’s text orders

denying his motions in which he again challenges the district 

court’s characterization of his February 2006 letter as a § 2255 

motion and seeks to file another § 2255 motion. 

The orders are not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 
3

322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); 

Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have 

independently reviewed the record and conclude that Miller has 

not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny Miller’s 

motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We also deny Miller’s motions to address counsel’s 

failure to file a notice of appeal, to accept apology, and for 

clarification. 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.

DISMISSED
| Skip to contentSocial Security Online | Actuarial Publications |
|---------------------------------------|------------------------|

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

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

| Level of Monthly Benefits (PIA) | Description of Proposed Provision:      Increase the PIA to a level such that a worker with 30 years of earnings at the minimum wage level would receive an adjusted PIA equal to 120 percent of the Federal poverty level for an aged individual. This provision would take full effect for all newly eligible OASDI workers in 2026, and would be phased in for new eligible in 2017 through 2025. The percentage increase in PIA would be lowered proportionately for those with fewer than 30 years of earnings, down to no enhancement for workers with 20 or fewer years of earnings. (Year-of-work requirements are scaled for disabled workers based on their years of potential work from age 22 to benefit eligibility). The benefit enhancement percentage would be reduced proportionately for workers with higher average indexed monthly earnings (AIME), down to no enhancement for those with AIME at least twice that of a 35-year steady minimum wage earner. |
|---------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                 |

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

|  |  |
|--|--|

|        |
|--------|
|   | Privacy Policy      | Website Policies        & Other Important Information      | Site Map     Last reviewed or modified August 26, 2009 |
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4869]



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

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION
[Docket No. C-3556]


Olsen Laboratories, Inc., et al.; Prohibited Trade Practices, and 
Affirmative Corrective Actions

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Consent order.

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

SUMMARY: In settlement of alleged violations of federal law prohibiting 
unfair acts and practices and unfair methods of competition, this 
consent order prohibits, among other things, two Kansas-based firms and 
an official from making false claims for Eez-Away, an arthritis pain 
treatment, or similar products. The consent order requires the 
respondents to possess competent and reliable scientific evidence 
before making any health or medical benefit claim for any personal or 
household product or service they market in the future; requires them 
to clearly identify any future infomerical they disseminate as paid 
advertising; and prohibits them from misusing endorsements.

DATES: Complaint and Order issued February 6, 1995.\1\

    \1\Copies of the Complaint and the Decision and Order are 
available from the Commission's Public Reference Branch, H-130, 6th 
Street & Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 20580.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lesley Fair, FTC/S-4002, Washington, DC, 20580. (202) 326-3081.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On Thursday, December 1, 1994, there was 
published in the Federal Register, 59 FR 61622, a proposed consent 
agreement with analysis In the Matter of Olsen Laboratories, Inc., et 
al., for the purpose of soliciting public comment. Interested parties 
were given sixty (60) days in which to submit comments, suggestions or 
objections regarding the proposed form of the order.
    No comments having been received, the Commission has ordered the 
issuance of the complaint in the form contemplated by the agreement, 
made its jurisdictional findings and entered an order to cease and 
desist, as set forth in the proposed consent agreement, in disposition 
of this proceeding.

(Sec. 6, 38 Stat. 721; 15 U.S.C. 46. Interprets or applies sec. 5, 
38 Stat. 719, as amended; 15 U.S.C. 45, 52)
Donald S. Clark,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4869 Filed 2-27-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6750-01-M
```

[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 3770 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

117th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 3770

 To establish a point of order against legislation that would cause a 
net increase in outlays unless the Director of the Congressional Budget 
          Office certifies that inflation is below 3 percent.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 7, 2022

Mr. Lee (for himself and Mr. Scott of Florida) introduced the following 
 bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Budget

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To establish a point of order against legislation that would cause a 
net increase in outlays unless the Director of the Congressional Budget 
          Office certifies that inflation is below 3 percent.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Preventing Runaway Inflation in 
Consumer Expenditures Act'' or the ``PRICE Act''.

SEC. 2. POINT OF ORDER AGAINST LEGISLATION THAT WOULD CAUSE A NET 
              INCREASE IN OUTLAYS UNLESS THE DIRECTOR OF THE 
              CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE CERTIFIES THAT INFLATION IS 
              BELOW 3 PERCENT.

    (a) Point of Order.--It shall not be in order in the Senate to 
consider any bill, joint resolution, motion, amendment, amendment 
between the Houses, or conference report that would cause a net 
increase in outlays relative to the most recently published 
Congressional Budget Office baseline unless the Director of the 
Congressional Budget Office certifies (based on the most recent data 
available to the Director) that inflation, as measured in either the 
average of the annualized changes in the 3 most recently published 
monthly reports on the consumer price index for all-urban consumers 
published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor, 
or the previous year's unadjusted annual change in that index, is below 
3 percent.
    (b) Waiver and Appeal.--Subsection (a) may be waived or suspended 
in the Senate only by an affirmative vote of three-fifths of the 
Members, duly chosen and sworn. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of 
the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to 
sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised 
under subsection (a).
                                 <all>
```
**Exhibit 32.04**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THESARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with the GoRemote InternetCommunications, Inc. Amendment No. 1 to Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qfor the quarterly period ended April 30, 2005, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, DanielW. Fairfax, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge based on a reviewof the Report: (1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) the informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and result of operations of the Company for the periodcovered by the Report.

 

 
| Date:  September 26, 2005 | By:    | /s/ DANIEL W.  FAIRFAX                                    |   |
|-------------------------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|                                |   | Daniel W.  Fairfax                                        |
|                                |   | Senior Vice  President & Chief Financial Officer |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to GoRemote and will be retained byGoRemote and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----