alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 80 (Wednesday, April 24, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 18059-18060]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10006]



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


DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71

[Airspace Docket No. 96-ACE-1]


Revocation of Class E Airspace; Lake Winnebago, MO

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action revokes the Class E airspace area at Lake 
Winnebago, MO. On June 9, 1995, the Lake Winnebago Airport closed and 
Class E airspace at this location is no longer necessary.

EFFECTIVE DATES: 0901 UTC, April 25, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Division, 
Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal Aviation 
Administration, 601 East 12th Street, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; 
telephone: (816) 426-3408.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The Rule

    This amendment to part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 
CFR part 71) removes the Class E airspace area at Lake Winnebago, MO. 
The FAA is removing this airspace area as a result of the closure of 
the Lake Winnebago Municipal Airport on June 9, 1995. Class E airspace 
is no longer needed at this location. Accordingly, since the action 
revokes controlled airspace and returns that airspace to the users, 
notice and public procedure under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) are unnecessary.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

    Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).

Adoption of the Amendment

    In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation 
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

PART 71--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854; 24 
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.


71.1  [Amended]

    2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal 
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and 
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 
1995, is amended as follows:

[[Page 18060]]

Paragraph 6005  Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or 
more above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ACE MO E5 Lake Winnebago, MO [Removed]

* * * * *
    Issued in Kansas City, MO, on February 18, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-10006 Filed 4-23-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 70 (Wednesday, April 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 18606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8945]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to Section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting:

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Deafness and Other 
Communication Disorders Special Emphasis Panel.
    Date: April 28, 1995.
    Time: 9:30-11:30 a.m.
    Place: 6120 Executive Boulevard, Room 400C, Rockville, MD 20852.
    Contact Person: Marilyn Semmes, Ph.D., Acting Chief, Scientific 
Review Branch, DEA, NIDCD, NIH, EPS Room 400C, 6210 Executive 
Boulevard, MSC 7180, Bethesda, MD 20892-7180, 301/496-8683.
    Purpose/Agenda: To review and evaluate a contract proposal.
    The meeting, which will be conducted as a telephone conference 
call, will be closed in accordance with the provisions set forth in 
sec. 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5, U.S.C. The application and/
or proposal and the discussion could reveal confidential trade 
secrets or commercial property such as patentable material and 
personal information concerning individuals associated with the 
applications and/or proposals, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the urgent need to meet timing limitations imposed by 
the grant review cycle.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.173 
Biological Research Related to Deafness and Communication Disorders)

    Dated: April 6, 1995.
Susan K. Feldman,
Committee Management Officer, NIH.
[FR Doc. 95-8945 Filed 4-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6417
EARL C. BEVINS; DELPHINE BEVINS, Plaintiffs - Appellees, versus RICHARD L. EVANS; FRANK M. PECK, JR., Defendants - Appellants.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at Huntington. Joseph Robert Goodwin, District Judge. (CA-97-0256) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Evans, Frank M. Peck, Jr., Appellants Pro Se. P. Nathan Bowles, Jr., BOWLES, RICE, MCDAVID, GRAFF & LOVE, Charleston, West Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellants appeal from the district court's order remanding this case to the state court from which they sought to remove it. A district court order remanding a case to the state court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal absent special circumstances, not applicable here. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d) (1994); see Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca , ___ U.S. ___, 64 U.S.L.W. 4035, 4036 (U.S. Dec. 5, 1995) (No. 94-1530). We therefore dismissthe appeal. We deny Appellants' motion to place the addendum to informal brief under seal and dispense with oral argument because thefacts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02-22-00338-CV

KIMBERLY GOESLING, Appellant

V. 

AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Appellee

§

§ 

§ 

§ 

On Appeal from the 342nd District 

Court 

of Tarrant County (342-314565-20) 

October 26, 2023

Memorandum Opinion by Justice 

Bassel

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there 

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the trial 

court is affirmed. 

It is further ordered that Appellant Kimberly Goesling shall pay all costs of this 

appeal, for which let execution issue. 

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS 

By /s/ Dabney Bassel 

 Justice Dabney Bassel
Order filed September 5, 2013

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 13

- 00509

- CV

____________ ENZO INVESTMENTS, LP , Appellant

V. CHARLES WHITE, Appellee

On Appeal from the 152nd District Court

Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 2009

- 08290



### O R D E R
The notice of appeal in this case was filed June 7, 2013. The clerk’s record was filed July 26, 2013. To date, the filing fee of $175.00 has not been paid. Therefore, the court issues the following order.
Appellant is ordered to pay the filing fee in the amount of $175.00 to the
Clerk of this court on or before September 18, 2013. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. Ifappellant fails to timely pay the filing fee in accordance with this order, the appeal

will be dismissed.

PER CURIA M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 12-1150

DARIUS DYWANE MITCHELL,

 Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

NORTHROP GRUMMAN,

 Defendant – Appellee,

and

VALUE OPTIONS; RIVERSIDE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CENTER,

 Defendants.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson, 

District Judge. (4:11-cv-00118-RAJ-DEM)

Submitted: April 19, 2012 Decided: April 25, 2012

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Darius Dywane Mitchell, Appellant Pro Se. Mark Edward Warmbier, 

KAUFMAN & CANOLES, PC, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Darius Mitchell appeals the district court’s order 

dismissing his claims brought pursuant to Title VII of the Civil 

Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e to 2000e-17 (2006). We 

have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. 

Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district 

court. Mitchell v. Northrop Grumman, No. 4:11-cv-00118-RAJ-DEM 

(E.D. Va. Jan. 18, 2012). 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.

AFFIRMED
C OURT OF A PPEALS FOR THE

F IRST D ISTRICT OF T EXAS AT H OUSTON

O RDER

Appellate case name: Clifford James Gratton v. The State of Texas

Appellate case number: 01

- 10

- 00615

- CR

Trial court case number: 1231782

Trial court: 339th District Court of Harris C ounty , Texas

A supplemental clerk’s record complying with our Order of Continuing Abatement has

been filed with this Court. Therefore, we order the appeal reinstated

.

W e direct the Clerk of this Court to strike the brief filed on January 18, 2011 by prev ious

counsel for appellant.

Appellant’s brief is due 30 days from the date of this order. The State’s brief will be due

30 days from the date appellant’s brief is filed. Due to the previous delays in this appeal, no

extensions of time will be granted a bsent extraordinary circumstances. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.6(d).

It is so ORDERED.

Judge’s signature: /s/ Justice Evelyn V. Keyes

 Acting individually  Acting for the Court

Date: August 2, 2012
EXHIBIT 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-06275, 333-66831, 333-79047,
333-58264 and 333-110326) of Anika Therapeutics, Inc. of our report dated March 16, 2005 relating to the financial statements and management's assessment of the effectiveness of internal
control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, which appears in this Form 10-K.

|                                     |  | /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
|------------------------------------ |  | ------------------------------
|Boston, Massachusetts
March 16, 2005 |  |                               

---



QuickLinks
Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350 (AS ADOPTED

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE

SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002)



In connection with the annual report of BlastGard International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael J. Gordon, Chief Financial Officer of the company, certify to my knowledge and in my capacity as an officer of the Company, 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, as amended; and,



2.

The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the periods expressed in the Report.



Date: April 16, 2008



| |                        
| | -----------------------
| | /s/ Michael J. Gordon  
| | Michael J. Gordon      
| | Chief Financial Officer



The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.
#### Robert E. WINTERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 41091.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

May 23, 1989.

Craig K. Sweeney, Kansas City, for appellant.

William L. Webster, Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, Philip M. Koppe, Asst. Atty. Gen., Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SHANGLER, J., Presiding, and LOWENSTEIN and ULRICH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Appeal from denial of Rule 27.26 motion for post-conviction relief.

Affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Exhibit 13.1

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 this Amendment No. 2 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the fiscal year ended November 30, 2008 of Acergy S.A. (the
Company) as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (the Commission) on the date hereof (the Report) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Jean P. Cahuzac, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, that:

(1) the Report fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

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



|                        |  |  |  |  |  |     |  |                                        
|----------------------- |  |  |  |  |  | --- |  | ---------------------------------------
|Date: November 23, 2009 |  |  |  |  |  | By: |  | /s/    Jean P. Cahuzac                 
|                        |  |  |  |  |  |     |  | Jean P. Cahuzac Chief Executive Officer
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-1500

ANDREA JEAN FULLER,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

CULPEPER COUNTY, VIRGINIA; CULPEPER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF 

PUBLIC SAFETY COMMUNICATIONS; WILLIAM E. MARTIN, JR.; 

JENNIFER ROSENFELD; JOHN C. EGERTSON,

Defendants - Appellees.

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

Charlottesville. Norman K. Moon, Senior District Judge. (3:22-cv-00058-NKM-JCH)

Submitted: November 20, 2023 Decided: December 19, 2023

Before KING and WYNN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Andrea Jean Fuller, Appellant Pro Se. Jeremy David Capps, Sarah Marie Carroll, 

HARMAN CLAYTOR CORRIGAN & WELLMAN, Glen Allen, Virginia, for Appellees. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1500 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Andrea Jean Fuller appeals the magistrate judge’s order denying her motion to 

appoint counsel and the district court’s order granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss her 

complaint alleging discrimination and retaliatory termination in violation of the Americans 

with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 to 12213, and the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, as 

amended, 29 U.S.C. §§ 701 to 796l. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error.*

 Accordingly, we affirm. Fuller v. Culpeper Cnty., No. 3:22-cv-00058-NKM-JCH 

(W.D. Va. Oct. 24, 2022 & Apr. 13, 2023). 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

* Contrary to the magistrate judge’s statement, the district court has the authority to 

appoint counsel in civil actions to represent parties who, like Fuller, are proceeding in 

forma pauperis. See, e.g., Miller v. Simmons, 814 F.2d 962, 966 (4th Cir. 1987). However, 

as Fuller’s action was not so complex that counsel was necessary, we find no abuse of 

discretion in the denial of the motion to appoint counsel. 

USCA4 Appeal: 23-1500 Doc: 15 Filed: 12/19/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
AXA

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 ofAXA S.A. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof (the "Report"), I, Henri de Castries, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Management Board ofthe Registrant, 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, that:

(1) The Report fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in suchReport.

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purposes.

|/s/ | Henri de Castries               
|--- | --------------------------------
|    |                                 
|    | Chief Executive Officer         
|    | Chairman of the Management Board
|    | March 27, 2009                  

---

AXA

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2008 ofAXA S.A. (the "Registrant"), as filed with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission onthe date hereof (the "Report"), I, Denis Duverne, Chief Financial Officer and a Member of theManagement Board of the Registrant, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies, in all material respects, with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2)  The information contained in such Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in such Report.

The foregoing certification is provided solely for purposes of complying with the provisions of Section 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and is not intended to be used or relied upon for any other purposes.

|/s/ | Denis Duverne                 
|--- | ------------------------------
|    |                               
|    | Chief Financial Officer       
|    | Member of the Management Board
|    | March 27, 2009
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Arvil Tomlinson, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant, as limited by her motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), imposed October 25, 1988, upon her conviction of criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree, upon her plea of guilty, the sentence being an indeterminate term of five years’ to life imprisonment.

Ordered that the sentence is vacated, on the law, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for resentencing.

Pursuant to a negotiated plea agreement, the defendant entered a plea of guilty to criminal possession of a controlled substance in the second degree in satisfaction of the indictment. The terms of the plea agreement called for a term of from five years’ to life imprisonment. During the plea allocution the court indicated in substance that the specified term was mandatory and it was constrained by law to impose that term. However, because the sentence promised was not the minimum permissible term for a class A-II felony offense, the court had discretion to impose a more lenient sentence than the one agreed to as part of the bargain if the facts so warranted. Due to the ambiguity in the record as to whether the court was operating under a mistaken belief as to the permissible range of sentences or its authority to impose a more lenient term than the one promised, we remit this matter for resentencing to permit the court to exercise its discretion *(see, e.g., People v Graybosch,*139 AD2d 664; *People v Montoya,*138 AD2d 528). Our determination should not be read as holding that the sentence imposed was excessive. If upon remittal the court should determine that a sentence *564more lenient than the one negotiated is appropriate, the court may entertain a motion by the People to withdraw their consent to the plea agreement *(see, People v Farrar,*52 NY2d 302, 307-308; *People v Montoya, supra).*Thompson, J. P., Kunzeman, Sullivan and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-6395

Apergy ESP Systems, LLC:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
Exhibit 10.10

August 16,
2003

Mr. Darl
McBride
President & CEO
The SCO Group
355 South 520 West
Lindon, Utah 84042

Dear
Darl:

This
letter shall serve as the second amendment and clarification to our engagement letter dated August 16, 2002, as amended in a letter dated February 16, 2003
(hereinafter, the "Engagement Letter").

I
am pleased to confirm in this letter that SCO and Morgan Keegan have mutually agreed to extend our Engagement Letter in accordance with the terms provided below.

For
clarification, although a second firm may assist SCO in connection with an M&A transaction, such participation will not serve to reduce Morgan Keegan's fee hereunder. Further, SCO
agrees to offer to Morgan Keegan the opportunity to be involved in all M&A transactions that may take place during the term of this engagement, however, in the event that Morgan Keegan chooses to not
be involved in an M&A transaction, then no fees will be payable to Morgan Keegan for that transaction.

---

Except
as otherwise provided above, the Engagement Letter remains unamended in full force and effect.

| |  | Very truly yours,        
| |  | -------------------------
| |  | MORGAN KEEGAN & CO., INC.
| |  | By:                      
| |  | Name:                    
| |  | Title:                   

Agreed
and Accepted:

CALDERA, INC.,
dba The SCO Group

|By:    |  | /s/ROBERT K. BENCH      |  | 
|------ |  | ----------------------- |  | 
|Name:  |  | Robert K. Bench         |  | 
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer |  | 

2

---

QuickLinks