alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 87 (Friday, May 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 19962-19963]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10931]



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

[[Page 19963]]

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Proposed Collection: Comment Request Extension of Standard Form 
113-A

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public 
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces the OPM intends to 
submit a request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for 
renewal of authority to collect data for the Monthly Report of Federal 
Civilian Employment (SF 113-A). The information that is collected 
provides a timely count of Governmentwide employment, payroll, and 
turnover data. Uses of the data include monthly reporting to OMB and 
publishing the bimonthly Federal Civilian Workforce Statistics--
Employment and Trends: answering data requests from the Congress, White 
House, other Federal agencies, the media, and the public; providing 
employment counts required by OMB; and serving as benchmark data for 
quality control of the Central Personnel Data File. The number of 
responding agencies is 130. The report is submitted 12 times a year. 
The total number of person-hours required to prepare and transmit the 
reports annually is estimated at 3,120.
    For copies of the clearance package, call James M. Farron, Reports 
and Forms Manager, on (202) 418-3208, or by e-mail to 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8ee4e3e8effcfce1e0cee3efe7e2a0e1fee3a0e9e1f8"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2f4542494e5d5d40416f424e464301405f4201484059">[email protected]</span></a>.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received by no later than 
July 2, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to: May Eng, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, Room 7439, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 
20415.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
May Eng, (202) 606-2684, U.S. Office of Personnel Management..

Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-10931 Filed 5-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0573 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. GARY L. PETERSON,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time to produce transcripts on appeal, and good cause appearing, Court Reporter Cindy Prindiville is granted an extension of time to and including May 19, 2022 , within which to prepare, file, and serve the transcripts requested on appeal. The Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order upon the district court and the court reporter.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

March 29 2022

03/29/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0573
#### Salvatore Ervolino, as a Shareholder of and Suing in the Right of Salco Westbury, Inc., Respondent-Appellant, v Frank Scappatura et al., Appellants-Respondents.

In an action, *inter alia,*to recover damages for breach of contract, the defendants appeal (1) from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Burstein, J.), dated February 17, 1988, which denied their cross motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and (2), as limited by their brief, from so much of an order of the same court, dated August 8, 1988, as, upon reargument, failed to unconditionally grant that branch of their cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The plaintiff cross-appeals from so much of *655the order dated August 8, 1988, as, upon reargument, granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for leave to serve an amended answer and conditionally granted that branch of the defendants’ motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint.

Ordered that the appeal from the order dated February 17, 1988, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated August 8, 1988, made upon reargument; and it is further,

Ordered that the order dated August 8, 1988, is modified by deleting therefrom the third and fourth decretal paragraphs, which, in effect, conditionally granted that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, and substituting therefor a provision unconditionally granting that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint; as so modified, the order dated August 8, 1988, is affirmed insofar as appealed and cross-appealed from, without costs or disbursements.

The record supports the finding by the Supreme Court that (1) "plaintiff filed a Chapter 7 petition in bankruptcy in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of New York on March 29, 1985, and that on July 28, 1986, the Trustee rendered his final report, requesting a hearing be held to pass upon that report”, (2) "plaintiff’s present claims accrued well before the close of the bankruptcy proceeding and plaintiff knew or should have known of all of the claims he now asserts during the period when the bankruptcy was pending”, and (3) "plaintiff failed to list any of these claims in the schedule of property he filed with the Bankruptcy Court”.

Under these circumstances, as the defendants correctly contend, the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to sue, and that branch of the defendants’ cross motion which was for summary judgment dismissing the complaint should have been granted unconditionally *(see, Dynamics Corp. v Marine Midland Bank,*69 NY2d 191; *DeLarco v DeWitt,*136 AD2d 406, 409; *Schepmoes v Hilles,*122 AD2d 35; *Bernstein v Polo Fashions,*55 AD2d 530; *cf., Quiros v Polow,*135 AD2d 697).

We have examined the plaintiff’s remaining arguments and find them to be without merit *(see, Sciascia v Nevins,*130 AD2d 649; *Lermit Plastics Co. v Lauman & Co.,*40 AD2d 680). Mangano, P. J., Kunzeman, Rubin and Balletta, JJ., concur.
****
 **Exhibit
32.1**
 
 **Certification
of the CEO and CFO Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
 
 The
undersigned in my capacity as the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial
Officer of Telecomm Sales Network, Inc., certifies, for the purposes of section
1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge, the Form
10-QSB for the quarter ended June 30, 2005, which accompanies this certification
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as applicable,
of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in the
periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
condition and results of operations of Telecomm Sales Network, Inc. at the dates
and for the periods indicated. The foregoing certification is subject to the
knowledge and willfulness qualifications contained in Title 18, Chapter 63,
Section 1350(c). This written statement is being furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission as an exhibit to Form 10-QSB. A signed original of this
statement has been provided to Telecomm Sales Network, Inc. and will be
maintained by Telecomm Sales Network, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/
      William
      SarineWilliam
      SarinePresident,
      Chief Executive Officer, Chief
      Financial
      Officer and Principal Accounting
      Officer
 
 Date:
August 15, 2005
 
 25
#### Gary MENSE, Plaintiff/Respondent, v. Gene ECKELKAMP, Defendant/Appellant.

No. 69083.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Nov. 12, 1996.

Daniel M. Buescher, Washington, Daniel L. Mohs, St. Louis, for defendant/appellant.

Craig E. Hellmann, Washington, for plaintiff/respondent.

Before CRANE, P.J., and GERALD M. SMITH and PUDLOWSKI, JJ.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

PER CURIAM.

Defendant Gene Eckelkamp appeals the trial court’s judgment in a court-tried case awarding damages to plaintiff. Defendant on appeal challenges only the trial court’s denial of his oral motion for continuance made at the time of trial. Ecklekamp appeared *pro se*when the court granted his trial counsel’s motion for withdrawal one week prior to this scheduled trial. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the continuance. *Lamastus v. Lamastus,*886 S.W.2d 721 (Mo.App.1994).

An opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a statement supporting this decision.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 01-2272

MARCIA A. TRUMBULL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus TOMMY G. THOMPSON, SECRETARY, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge. (CA-01-741-AW) Submitted: February 14, 2002 Decided: February 21, 2002 Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Marcia A. Trumbull, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Marcia A. Trumbull seeks to appeal the district court’s order dismissing her employment discrimination suit for a failure to respond to a show cause order regarding her inability to effect service of process on the Defendants. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because Trumbull’s notice of appeal was not timely filed. Parties are accorded sixty days after entry of the district court’s final judgment or order to note an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1), unless the district court extends the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(5) or reopens the appeal period under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(6). This appeal period is “mandatory and jurisdictional.” Browder v. Director, Dep’t of Corrections , 434 U.S. 257, 264 (1978) (quoting United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229 (1960)). The district court’s order was entered on the docket on August 15, 2001. Appellant’s notice of appeal was filed on October 17, 2001. Because Appellant failed to file a timely notice of appeal or to obtain an extension or reopening of the appeal period, we dismiss the appeal. We 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
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Michael Smith, Appellant.

(Appeal No. 2.)

Judgment unanimously affirmed. Same memorandum as in *People v Smith*([appeal No. 1] 162 AD2d 954 [decided herewith]). (Appeal from judgment of Onondaga County Court, Cunningham, J.—grand larceny, second degree.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Denman, Pine, Lawton and Davis, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Richard D. JASPER, Appellant.

Nos. WD 48608, WD 50152.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Nov. 14, 1995.

*407Judith C. LaRose, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and LOWENSTEIN and HANNA, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The defendant appeals from his conviction of one count of first degree burglary, § 569.160, RSMo 1994, one count of first degree trespass, § 569.140, RSMo 1994, and from the denial of his Rule 29.15 motion for post-conviction relief. Affirmed. Rules 30.25(b) and 84.16(b).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 19558]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10853]



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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73

[MM Docket No. 95-77; RM-8616]


Television Broadcasting Services; Virginia Beach, VA

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, at the request of Lockwood Broadcasting, Inc., 
allots UHF Channel 21 to Virginia Beach, Virginia, as an additional 
television service. See 60 FR 31278, June 14, 1995. Channel 21+ can be 
allotted to Virginia Beach consistent with the minimum distance 
separation requirements of Sections 73.610 and 73.698 of the 
Commission's Rules with a site restriction of 4.0 kilometers (2.5 
miles) south to avoid the ATV freeze zone surrounding Washington, DC. 
The coordinates for Channel 21+ at Virginia Beach are 36-48-38 and 75-
58-30. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 10, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pam Blumenthal, Mass Media Bureau, 
(202) 418-2180.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Report and Order, MM Docket No. 95-77, adopted March 25, 1996, and 
released April 24, 1996. 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, 
DC. The complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the 
Commission's copy contractor, ITS, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, 
NW., Suite 140, Washington, DC 20037.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Television broadcasting.

    Part 73 of title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended 
as follows:

PART 73--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 73 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154, 
as amended.


Sec. 73.606  [Amended]

    2. Section 73.606(b), the Table of TV Allotments under Virginia, is 
amended by adding Channel 21+ at Virginia Beach.

Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media 
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-10853 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
EXHIBIT 13.1

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







<PAGE>


                                  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 the Annual Report of IMA Exploration  Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 20-F for the year ending  December 31, 2007,  as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I, Joseph  Grosso,
President,  Chief  Executive  Officer  and  Director  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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.

Date:  March 28, 2008


/s/ Joseph Grosso
-----------------------------------------------
Joseph Grosso
Chief Executive Officer, President and Director







<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 32.2


                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


     In connection  with the  Quarterly  Report of W. S.  INDUSTRIES,  INC. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  February 28, 2009 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
James F. Dempsey,  President and Chief Executive Officer,  respectively,  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 to my  knowledge:

     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: April 13, 2009


                                 By: /s/ JAMES F. DEMPSEY
                                     _____________________________
                                         James F. Dempsey
                                         Chief  Financial  Officer
#### Brian R. NEAL, d/b/a Neal Construction, Plaintiff, Thomas and Joel Wrenn, Appellants, v. BASS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, INC., and W & L Excavation Company, Respondents.

No. WD 45251.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 4, 1992.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 29, 1992.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 24, 1992.

Karon D. Ramsey, Kansas City, for appellants.

Frederick H. Riesmeyer, II, Kansas City, for respondent Bass Const. Co.

Dan C. Sturdevant, Kansas City, for respondent W & L Excavation Co.

Before ULRICH, P.J., and SHANGLER and FENNER, JJ.

*605ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Thomas and Joel Wrenn (Wrenns) appeal following an adverse judgment regarding a construction contract dispute.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Douglas 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A a 

FILED 

MAY 1 1 2016 

datiLE.U.itAWAI 

-CLERK 

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA 

KATHRYN REYNOLDS; AND NORMAN 

GARAND, 

Appellants, 

No. 70260 

vs. 

NATIONAL DEFAULT SERVICING 

CORPORATION, AN ARIZONA 

CORPORATION; GREGORY WILDE, A 

NEVADA ATTORNEY; AND CINDY 

LEE STOCK, A NEVADA ATTORNEY, 

Respondents. 

ORDER DISMISSING APPEAL 

This is a pro se appeal. Second Judicial District Court, 

Washoe County; Elliott A. Sattler, Judge. 

Our review of the documents submitted to this court pursuant 

to NRAP 3(g) reveals a jurisdictional defect. Specifically, we are unable to 

discern whether this court has jurisdiction to consider the instant appeal 

because appellants fail to identify any appealable order. Moreover, it 

appears from the district court docket entries and minutes that the case 

has been removed to the federal court. Accordingly, it appears that no 

final judgment has been entered. A notice of appeal filed before entry of a 

final written judgment is premature and of no effect. See NRAP 4(a)(1); 

Rust v. Clark Cty. School District, 103 Nev. 686, 747 P.2d 1380 (1987). We 

conclude that we lack jurisdiction, and we 

ORDER this appeal DISMISSED. 
cc: Hon. Elliott A. Sattler, District Judge 

Kathryn Reynolds 

Norman Garand 

Malcolm Cisneros 

Tiffany & Bosco, P. A. 

Washoe District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

(DJ 1947A 

2
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 RMD Technologies, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending August 31, 2007 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), each
of the undersigned, in the capacities and on the date indicated below, hereby
certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section
906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to his knowledge:

(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.

Dated:  October 22, 2007            By:      /s/ Patrick A. Galliher
                                        ----------------------------
                                           Patrick A. Galliher
                                           Chief Financial Officer
United States Court of Appeals

For the First Circuit

 

No. 08-1818

EFRAÍN GONZÁLEZ-FUENTES, et al.,

Petitioners, Appellees,

v.

HON. CARLOS MOLINA, Secretary of Corrections and 

Rehabilitation of of Puerto Rico and Administrator of

Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Respondent, Appellant.

No. 08-1819

CARMEN RIVERA-FELICIANO, et al.

Plaintiffs, Appellees,

v.

HON. LUIS FORTUNO BURSET, Governor of Puerto Rico;

HON. ROBERTO SANCHEZ-RAMOS, Secretary of Justice of the

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico; HON. CARLOS MOLINA, Secretary

of Corrections and Rehabilitation of Puerto Rico and

Administrator of Corrections of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico;

HON. JOSE R. LOZADA, Director of the Bureau of Special

Investigations of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,

Defendants, Appellants.

 

ERRATA SHEET

The opinion of this Court issued on June 10, 2010, is amended as follows: 

On the coversheet replace Susana I. Peñagarícano-Brown, Puerto Rico Department of Justice,

with whom Roberto J. Sanchez Ramos, Secretary of Justice and Ileana M. Oliver-Falero, Acting

Solicitor General, were on brief, for appellants. with Susana I. Peñagarícano-Brown, Puerto Rico

Department of Justice, with whom Roberto J. Sanchez Ramos, Secretary of Justice , Ileana M.

Oliver-Falero, Acting Solicitor General, and Carlos A. Del Valle Cruz, Special Counsel, were on

brief, for appellants.
On page 13, note 8, line 12 replace "were it to conclude" with "were to conclude"

On page 44, line 1, replace "incidences" with "incidents"

On page 46, line 18, replace "incidences" with "incidents
# Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

September 2, 2022

No. 04

- 22

- 00072

- CV

JMI CONTRACTORS, LLC,

Appellant

v.

Jose Manuel MEDELLIN

, Appellee

From the 285th Judicial Distr ict Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 05983

Honorable Aaron Haas , Judge Presiding



### O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due on August 30, 2022, and on August 25, 2022, appellant filed a motion requesting an extension until September 29, 2022 to file his brief. On August 30, 2022, however, appellant filed his brief. Accordingly, appellant’s motion requesting an extension is

moot

.

_________________________________ Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said

court on this 2nd day of September, 2022

.

______________________________ _____ MICHAEL A. CRUZ

, Clerk of Court