alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2234-2235]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1098]



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


DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Notice Of Proposed Information Collection For Commissioned or 
Warrant Rank, USN, OR USNR Available For Public Comment

SUMMARY: Application for Commission or Warrant Rank, USN or USNR; All 
persons interested in entering the U.S. Navy or Naval Reserve in a 
commissioned status must provide various personal data in order for a 
Selection Board to determine their qualifications for naval service and 
for specific fields of endeavor which the applicant intends to pursue. 
This information is used to recruit and select applicants who are 
qualified for commission in the U.S. Navy or Naval Reserve.
    In compliance with Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction 
Act of 1995, the Navy Recruiting Command announces a proposed 
information collection and seeks public comment on the provisions 
thereof. Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection 
of information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions 
of the agency, including whether the information shall have practical 
utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of the burden of the 
proposed information collection; (c) ways to enhance the quality, 
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways 
to minimize the burden of the information collection on respondents, 
including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of 
information technology.

ADDRESSES: Written comments and recommendations on the proposed 
collection should be sent to Commander, Navy Recruiting Command, Mrs. 
Lambert (Code 10D), 801 N. Randolph Street, Arlington, VA 22203. 
Consideration will be given to all 

[[Page 2235]]
comments received within 60 days of the date of publication of this 
notice.
    Affected Public: Individuals or Households.
    Annual Burden Hours (including recordkeeping): 10,000.
    Number of Respondents: 20,000.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Average Burden per Response: 30 minutes.
    Frequency: On occasion.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: To request more information on this 
proposed information collection or to obtain a copy of the proposal and 
associated collection instruments, please write to the above address or 
call Mrs. Lambert, (703) 696-4185.

    Dated: January 16, 1996.
M.D. Schetzsle,
LT, JAGC, USNR, Alternate Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-1098 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3810-FF-P
Exhibit 10.3





PROMISSORY NOTE






AMOUNT:
DATE:






FOR VALUE RECEIVED,__________________("Borrower”) hereby promises to pay to the order of «Lender» ("Lender") the principal sum of ______________DOLLARS.  Payment in full, plus accrued interest of three and one quarter (3.25%) percent shall be made in lawful money of the United States, at the principal address of Lender, or such other place as the holder of this Note may designate on November 30, 2011 or upon demand.





Borrower shall have the privilege without premium or penalty, at any time and from time to time, of prepaying this Note in whole or in part.





No partial prepayment shall postpone or interrupt the payment of the remaining principal balance, all of which shall continue to be due and payable at the time and the manner set forth above.





Borrower agrees that a default shall occur hereunder in the event that payment is not made upon demand and such default continues for a period of ten (10) days from the date of demand therefor.  After the expiration of such ten (10) day period interest shall accrue on the unpaid balance due hereunder at a rate of twelve (12%) percent, together with attorneys' fees for collection and payment of the same, which sums may be enforced and recovered by the entry of judgment on this.





Borrower (and all endorsers, sureties and guarantors) waives presentment for payment, demand, notice of demand, notice of nonpayment or dishonor, protest and notice of protest of this Note, and all other notices in connection with the delivery, acceptance, performance, default, or enforcement of the payment of this Note; liability hereunder shall be unconditional and shall not be affected in any manner by any indulgence, extension of time, renewal, waiver or modification granted or consented to by Lender.





Borrower shall pay the cost of any revenue, tax or other stamps now or hereafter required by law at any time to be affixed to this Note or any security documents executed in conjunction herewith, and if any taxes be imposed with respect to debts secured by any such security documents or with respect to notes evidencing debts so secured Borrower agrees to pay or to reimburse Lender upon demand the amount of such taxes.





The words "Lender" and "Borrower" whenever occurring herein shall be deemed and construed to include their respective successors and assigns of Lender and Borrower.





This instrument shall be construed according to and governed by the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.





Page 1 of 2


IN WITNESS WHEREOF,Borrower has duly executed this Promissory Note under seal the day and year first above mentioned.










BY:NAME:TITLE:
EXHIBIT 33.2

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



The following certification accompanies the issuer's Annual Report on Form 10-K  and is not filed, as provided in Release 33-8212. 34-47551 dated March 21, 2003.



| |  | 
| |  | 
| |  | 





EXHIBIT 33.2



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of North Bay Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2006, I, Michael W. Wengel, Chief Financial Officer of North Bay Bancorp, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2003, that:

(1)

Such Annual Report on Form 10-K of North Bay Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2006, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-K of North Bay Bancorp for the year ended December 31, 2006, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of North Bay Bancorp.



Dated:  March 7, 2007

/s/ Michael W. WengelMICHAEL W. WENGELExecutive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial Officer)








| |     | 
| | --- | 
| | -2- |
Exhibit 10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
 2006 Compensation Arrangements for Named Executive Officers 
 On February 28, 2006, the Compensation Committee of the
Board of Directors of General Dynamics Corporation (the company) approved the 2006 base salaries and 2005 bonus payments for the company’s named executive officers. The named executive officers listed in the table below reflect those
individuals identified in the company’s 2006 Annual Proxy Statement with two exceptions: (1) Arthur J. Veitch who retired from the company in 2005 is not listed and (2) L. Hugh Redd, who succeeded Michael J. Mancuso as Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer effective June 1, 2006, has been added. 
 The table below lists the 2006 annual base salary levels effective March 20, 2006, with
the exception of Mr. Moss’ base salary which was effective April 3, 2006, and Mr. Redd’s base salary which was effective June 1, 2006. 
  

				
	 Name and Principal Position
	  	2006 Base
Salary
	 Nicholas D. Chabraja
 Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
	  	$	1,300,000
	 Michael J. Mancuso
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (through May 31, 2006)
	  	$	595,000
	 L. Hugh Redd
 Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (effective June 1, 2006)
	  	$	410,000
	 Gerard J. DeMuro
 Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Information Systems and Technology
	  	$	550,000
	 David A. Savner
 Senior Vice President, General Counsel and Secretary
	  	$	500,000
	 Bryan T. Moss
 Executive Vice President and Group Executive, Aerospace
	  	$	480,000

 Effective March 1, 2006, the Compensation Committee also approved the 2005 bonus payments which were previously
disclosed in the company’s current report on Form 8-K, filed with the Commission March 2, 2006.
Exhibit 21.1

SUBSIDIARIES OF STATION CASINOS, INC.

Palace
Station Hotel & Casino, Inc.
Boulder Station, Inc.
Texas Station, LLC
Sunset Station, Inc.
Santa Fe Station, Inc.
Fiesta Station, Inc.
Rancho Station, LLC
Lake Mead Station, Inc.
Tropicana Station, Inc.
Charleston Station, LLC
Magic Star Station, LLC
Gold Rush Station, LLC
LML Station, LLC
Palms Station, LLC:
    Fiesta Palms, LLC (6.7% ownership)
    Palms Place, LLC (6.7% ownership)
    Palms Place II, LLC (6.7% ownership)
Green Valley Station, Inc.:
    Town Center Amusements, Inc., A Limited Liability Company d/b/a Barley's Casino & Brewing Company (50% ownership)
    Greens Café, LLC d/b/a The Greens (50% ownership)
    Sunset GV, LLC (50% ownership)
GV Ranch Station, Inc.:
    Green Valley Ranch Gaming, LLC (50% ownership)
Aliante Station, LLC:
    Aliante Holding, LLC (50% ownership):
                Aliante Gaming, LLC
                Losee Elkhorn Properties, LLC
River Central, LLC
Durango Station, Inc.
SC Durango Development, LLC:
                Durango Station Retail, LLC (50% ownership)
Inspirada Station, LLC
FCP Mezzco Parent, LLC:
    FCP Mezzco Parent Sub, LLC:
                FCP Mezzco Borrower VII, LLC:
                                FCP MezzCo Borrower VI, LLC:
                                         
       FCP MezzCo Borrower V, LLC:
                                         
                       FCP MezzCo Borrower IV, LLC:
                                         
                                       FCP MezzCo Borrower
III, LLC:
                                         
                                          
             FCP MezzCo Borrower II, LLC:
                                         
                                          
                             FCP Mezzco Borrower I, LLC:
                                         
                                          
                                          
   FCP PropCo, LLC
CV HoldCo, LLC:
    CV PropCo, LLC
SC Rancho Development, LLC:
    Rancho Road, LLC (50% ownership)
Station Holdings, Inc:
    Town Center Station, LLC
Vista Holdings, LLC
Centerline Holdings, LLC
Station California, LLC
Station Development, LLC
Station Construction, LLC

---



Northern NV
Acquisitions, LLC
Reno Land Holdings, LLC
Tropicana Acquisitions, LLC
Auburn Development, LLC
SC Butte Development, LLC
SC Butte Management, LLC
SC Sonoma Development, LLC
SC Sonoma Resort Management, LLC
SC Sonoma Alliance, LLC
SC Sonoma Land Holdings, LLC
Sonoma Land Acquisition Company, LLC:
    SCI/CE Rohnert Park, LLC (50% ownership)
Fresno Land Acquisitions, LLC
SC Madera Development, LLC
SC Madera Management, LLC
SC Michigan, LLC:
    MPM Enterprises, LLC (50% ownership)
STN Aviation, Inc.
Tropicana Station, LLC
Past Enterprises, Inc.
Your Move, Inc. (75% ownership)

---



QuickLinks
#### Marian MURRAY, Employee/Appellant, v. GUARANTEE ELECTRICAL CO., Employer/Appellant, and Continental Casualty Co., Insurer/Appellant, and State of Missouri, Second Injury Fund, Respondent.

No. 64923.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 2, 1994.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 19, 1994.

James J. Sievers, Clayton, St. Louis, for employee/appellant.

Carl Kessinger, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for employer/appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., M. Melissa Manda, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for Second Injury Fund.

Before PUDLOWSKI, SIMON and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*295
      *ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Marian Murray, appeals from a decision of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission modifying the award of the Administrative Law Judge Siedlik. Employer and Insurer, Guarantee Electrical Co. and Continental Casualty Co., appeal from the award as well. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended *opinion*would have no precedential value, we affirm the Commission’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum solely for the use the parties here involved has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Felix Dewayne SMITH, Appellant.

No. 62956.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Sept. 7, 1993.

Raymond L. Legg, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., John Munson Morris III, Elizabeth L. Ziegler, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before Gary M. GAERTNER, C.J., and PUDLOWSKI and SIMON, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Felix Dewayne Smith, appeals from a jury conviction entered in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County for one count of sale of a controlled substance and two counts of distribution of a controlled substance within one thousand feet of a school. We affirm. We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous. As we further find an extended opinion would have no precedential value, we affirm the motion court’s order pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for our decision.
Amendment to Amended and Restated Employment Agreement - J. David Aronson



 Exhibit 10.6 

[Tube City IMS Corporation Letterhead] 

May 10, 2010 

J. David Aronson 
 Tube City IMS Corporation

 P.O. Box 2000 
 12 Monongahela Avenue

 Glassport, Pennsylvania 15045 
 Dear
David: 
 This letter amends your Amended and Restated Employment Agreement, dated as of January 25, 2007, by and among
Metal Services Acquisition Corp., Tube City IMS Corporation and you (the “Employment Agreement”). In order to correct an error in the Employment Agreement, the first sentence of Section 2C(f) is hereby replaced in its
entirety as follows: 
 “Effective in the year commencing January 1, 2015, Normal Retirement Benefits shall be
increased to Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) annually; and early Retirement Benefits shall increase to Thirty Thousand Dollars ($30,000) annually at age 55, plus Two Thousand Dollars ($2,000) for each full year of attained between ages 55 and 65 at
the date of early retirement to a maximum of Forty Eight Thousand Dollars ($48,000) at age 64.” 
 This letter is to be
interpreted consistent with and governed by each of the provisions of Section 4 of the Employment Agreement. 
  

	
	Sincerely,
	
	METAL SERVICES ACQUISITION CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Thomas E. Lippard

 

	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
	Title: Executive Vice President
	
	TUBE CITY IMS CORPORATION
	
	 /s/ Thomas E. Lippard

 

	Name: Thomas E. Lippard
	Title: Executive Vice President


  

	
	Agreed and Accepted:
	
	 /s/ J. David Aronson

 

	 J. David Aronson
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
Nuance Communications, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ronald Croen, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, 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 Company.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|March 31, 2003  /s/    RONALD CROENRonald Croen President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Directors
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### John J. O’NEILL, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Mary Frances O’NEILL, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 62858.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 9, 1993.

Richrd J. Burke, Jr., Padberg, McSwee-ney, Slater & Merz, St. Louis, for petitioner/appellant.

Jeffrey S. Scheckter, Sehecter & Watkins, Clayton, for respondent/respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*436ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Husband appeals from the maintenance portion of a dissolution decree. We affirm. The judgment of the trial court is supported by substantial and competent evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. An extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.-16(b).
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 21

- 00408

- CR

DANA ALISHA WHEATLEY

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS

On Appeal from the 36th District Court of Aransas County , Texas Trial Court Cause No. A

- 19

- 5079

- CR

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considere d this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be dismissed. The Court orders the appeal
DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion

. We further order this decision certified below for observance. March 24, 2022
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 Quarterly report of JayHawk Energy Inc. (the “Company”) on
Form 10-QSB for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph B. Young,
Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
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 and 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.




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






Date:
      May 15, 2008
            By: /s/ JOSEPH B.
      YOUNGName:
      Joseph B. YoungTitle:
      Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 32.1





Section 906 Certification by the Chief
Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer





Stephen J. Schoepfer, Chief Executive Officer
and Chief Financial Officer, of Carbonics Capital Corporation, a Delaware corporation (the “Company”) hereby certifies
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as added by ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to their knowledge:



(1) The Company’s annual report on
Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2011 (“Form 10-K”) 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 Form
10-K fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operation of the Company.



|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|/s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer                                          |  | /s/ Stephen J. Schoepfer                                         
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer
        Title: Chief Executive Officer |  | Name: Stephen J. Schoepfer
        Title: Chief Financial Officer
|                                                                  |  |                                                                  
|Date: April 16, 2012                                              |  |
#### Clarence M. MACE, Appellant, v. Geoffrey T. MORRIS, Judge, Jefferson Circuit Court and Commonwealth of Kentucky, Appellees.

No. 92-SC-535-MR.

Supreme Court of Kentucky.

Jan. 21, 1993.

Rehearing Denied May 27, 1993.

Daniel T. Goyette, J. David Niehaus, Deputy Appellate Defender, Jefferson Dist. Public Defender, Louisville, for appellant.

*458Chris Gorman, Atty. Gen., C. Lloyd Vest, II, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Louisville, for ap-pellees.

COMBS, Justice.

Clarence M. Mace appeals from an order of the Court of Appeals denying his petition for a writ of prohibition.

Mace was indicted for rape in the second degree and sexual abuse in the first degree. The Commonwealth moved the trial court for an order authorizing it to collect blood, hair and saliva specimens from the defendant, for scientific comparison with physical evidence obtained upon examination of the alleged victim. The motion was supported by the affidavit of the prosecutor, presenting the posture of the evidence. The motion was opposed on a number of grounds, all said to demonstrate that the court lacked authority to order the taking of the samples absent the defendant’s consent. The Commonwealth’s motion was granted,, and Mace petitioned the Court of Appeals for a writ of prohibition. The petition was denied, hence the present appeal.

Very recently, dealing with an essentially identical case, we have upheld the procedure in question as a constitutionally permissible search. *Holbrook v. Knopf,*Ky., 847 S.W.2d 52 (1992). The *Holbrook*decision is dispositive of the present case.

We may, however, elaborate briefly on the appellant’s argument that the procedure compels the defendant to “give evidence against himself,” in violation of Section 11 of the Kentucky Constitution. In *Holbrook*we cited *Newman v. Stinson,*Ky., 489 S.W.2d 826 (1972) as “differentiating such procedures from self-incrimination.” The appellant believes that *Newman v. Stinson*is quite “wrong-headed” in concluding that the protection afforded by Section 11 is identical to that provided by the Fifth Amendment to the federal constitution. He maintains that “to give evidence” (Section 11) is of broader scope than “to be a witness” (Fifth Amendment). In our view, Section 11 has not been contracted to force identity with the Fifth Amendment, but rather the Fifth Amendment has been read to prohibit the compulsion of testimonial evidence, whether from the witness stand or otherwise. The appellant asks us to read Section 11 to guarantee that a defendant may not be compelled “to give *up*evidence on which criminal liability can be imposed” (quoted from appellant’s reply brief, emphasis added). We do not believe that Section 11 was intended to repeal the authority to seize physical evidence implied by Section 10.

The order of the Court of Appeals denying the petition for writ of prohibition is affirmed.

All concur.