alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21521]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11787]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements; Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Department of Transportation (DOT), Federal Aviation 
Administration.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 
et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection Request 
(ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The FAA requested and received 
an emergency clearance through June 30, 1996 under OMB control number 
2120-0595. This request is for the three year clearance. The ICR 
describes the nature of the information collection and its expected 
cost and burden.

DATES: Comments must be submitted by June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: FAA Hotline number (202) 267-7029, or 
the Internet Home Page: <a href="http://www.faa.gov/asu/asu100/acq-reform/
acq__home.htm">http://www.faa.gov/asu/asu100/acq-reform/
acq__home.htm</a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Federal Aviation Administration Acquisition Management 
System (FAAMS).
    Abstract: This document contains policy guidance that implements 
the FY 1996 Transportation Appropriation Bill, that gave FAA an 
exemption from acquisition laws and provided authority to create a 
flexible, more cost effective system. Guidance is focused on the 
acquisition management system, the life cycle acquisition process, the 
procurement system and process, and an acquisition work force learning 
system Acquisitions are handled by integrated product teams who provide 
support through all stages of the process.
    Need: Pursuant to section 348 of Public Law 104-50, the FAA hereby 
develops and implements a new acquisition management system that 
addresses the unique needs of the agency. This document establishes the 
policies, guiding principles, and internal procedures for FAA's new 
acquisition system.
    Respondents: The respondents are individuals and businesses who do 
or wish to do business under contract with the FAA. We estimate 
approximately 3,300 respondents.
    Frequency: The frequency is on occasion and monthly with an 
estimated 1 to 12 responses per respondent.
    Burden: The estimated burden is 333,292 hours annually. Comments on 
this collection should be submitted to the Office of Information and 
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, New Executive Office Bldg., 725 17th St. NW., 
Washington, DC 20503, Attention: Desk Officer for FAA.

    Issued in Washington, D.C. on May 7, 1996.
Phillip A. Leach,
Clearance Officer, United States Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-11787 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
##### 



Exhibit 10.2

FIRST AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT

FIRST AMENDMENT TO INDEMNITY AGREEMENT (Amendment), dated this 27th day of
March, 2000, between First Union Real Estate Equity and Mortgage Investments,
an Ohio business trust having its principal place of business at 55 Public
Square, Suite 1900, Cleveland, OH 44113 (First Union), and Imperial Parking
Corporation, a Delaware corporation having its principal place of business at
601 West Cordova Street, Suite 300, Vancouver, BC Canada V6B 1G1 (Impark).

WHEREAS, First Union and Impark are parties to a certain Indemnity Agreement
dated March 27, 2000 (the Indemnity Agreement);

WHEREAS, both First Union and Impark desire to amend the Indemnity Agreement as
set out herein;

NOW THEREFORE, pursuant to paragraph 4.9 of the Indemnity Agreement, the
parties hereto agree to delete paragraph 2.1(a) of the Indemnity Agreement in
its entirety and replace it as follows:

2.1(a) the Oracle Litigation;

All other terms and conditions of the Indemnity Agreement remain unchanged.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment as of the date
first written above.

|                                                                                                                
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|FIRST UNION REAL ESTATE EQUITY &MORTGAGE
INVESTMENTS                                                            
|                                                                                                                
|By:            /s/                                                                                              
|                                                                                                                
|Name:   BRENDA J. MIXSONTitle: CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICERIMPERIAL PARKING CORPORATION
           
By:           /s/
|                                                                                                                
|Name: BRUCE NEWSOME                                                                                             
|                                                                                                                
|Title: SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, C.E.O.
Exhibit 32.1



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

PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the accompanying Annual Report of Datrek Miller International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ending
December 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Michael S. Hedge, Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge, 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 fully presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |     |  |                            
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | ---------------------------
|Date: April 22, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/ Michael S. Hedge       
|                     |  |     |  | Michael S. Hedge           
|                     |  |     |  | Principal Executive Officer
#### Roger ODLE, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 68137.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Oct. 10, 1995.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and KAROHL and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the motion court’s dismissal, for untimely filing, of his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. We affirm.

Movant’s motion was filed well past the filing deadline. There is no merit to his contention that the time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) operated to arbitrarily deny him his right to due process. The time limitation of Rule 24.035(b) is reasonable, constitutionally valid, and mandatory by its terms. *Day v. State,*770 S.W.2d 692, 695 (Mo. banc 1989), *cert. denied sub nom., Walker v. Missouri,*493 U.S. 866, 110 S.Ct. 186, 107 L.Ed.2d 141 (1989). The time limitation does not violate movant’s right to due process or equal protection. *Kendrick v. State,*804 S.W.2d 386, 387 (Mo.App.1991).

No error of law appears, and no prece-dential value would be served by further opinion. 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).
<PAGE>
EXHIBIT 10.44

             Amendment to Strategic Operations Contractor Agreement

         Reference is made to the Strategic Operations Contractor Agreement,
dated on or about May 7th, 2004 ("Original Agreement"), between Markland
Technologies Inc. (the "Company") and Asset Growth Company.

         The Original Agreement is hereby amended as follows: In consideration
of the deletion of section 4(d), with regard to the anti-dilution provision, of
the Original Agreement, the Company has agreed to make the first grant of shares
based on the Company Equity as of May 12th, 2004, the date of the present
Agreement between parties.

         The Original Agreement otherwise remains in full force and effect

THE PARTIES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EACH HAS READ THIS AMENDMENT TO THE ORIGINAL
AGREEMENT, UNDERSTANDS IT, AND AGREES TO BE BOUND BY ITS TERMS AND CONDITIONS.
FURTHER, THE PARTIES AGREE THAT THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND THIS AMENDMENT TO THE
ORIGINAL AGREEMENT AND ANY EXHIBITS THERETO OR HERETO ARE THE COMPLETE AND
EXCLUSIVE STATEMENT OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES, WHICH SUPERSEDES ALL
PROPOSALS OR ALL PRIOR AGREEMENTS, ORAL OR WRITTEN, AND ALL OTHER COMMUNICATIONS
BETWEEN THE PARTIES RELATING TO THE SUBJECT MATTER HEREOF.

ACCEPTED AND AGREED:

MARKLAND TECHNOLOGY, INC.                    ASSET GROWTH COMPANY

By:  Robert Tarini                           By:  Ken Ducey, Jr.
CEO                                          CEO


/s/ Robert Tarini                            /s/ Kenneth Ducey Jr.

Date: 6/14/2004                              Date: 6/14/2004
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 83 (Monday, April 29, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10539]



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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Surface Transportation Board <SUP>1
[STB Docket No. AB-167 (Sub-No. 1159)]


Consolidated Rail Corporation--Abandonment--in Union County, NJ

    The Board has issued a certificate authorizing Consolidated Rail 
Corporation (Conrail) to abandon its 1.03-mile Sound Shore Industrial 
Track from milepost 0.29 to milepost 1.32, in Linden, Union County, NJ. 
The abandonment was granted subject to standard employee protective 
conditions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The ICC Termination Act of 1995, Pub. L. No. 104-88, 109 
Stat. 803, which was enacted on December 29, 1995, and took effect 
on January 1, 1996, abolished the Interstate Commerce Commission and 
transferred certain functions to the Surface Transportation Board 
(the Board). This decision relates to functions that are subject to 
Board jurisdiction pursuant to 49 U.S.C. 10903.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The abandonment certificate will become effective 30 days after 
this publication unless the Board finds that a financially responsible 
person has offered financial assistance (through subsidy or purchase) 
to enable rail service to be continued.
    Requests for public use conditions must be filed with the Board and 
Conrail within 10 days after publication.
    Any offers of financial assistance must be filed with the Board and 
Conrail no later than 10 days from the publication date of this Notice. 
The following notation must be typed in bold face on the lower left-
hand corner of the envelope containing the offer: ``Office of 
Proceedings, AB-OFA.'' Any offer previously made must be remade within 
this 10-day period.
    Information and procedures regarding financial assistance for 
continued rail service are contained in 49 U.S.C. 10904 and 49 CFR 
1152.27. Requests for public use conditions must conform with 49 CFR 
1152.28(a)(2).

    Decided: April 23, 1996.

    By the Board, David M. Konschnik, Director, Office of 
Proceedings.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10539 Filed 4-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4915-00-P
#### Lonnie SNELLING, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. Queen Esther STEPHENSON, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 69981.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

June 4, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied July 24,1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Sept. 17,1996.

Lonnie Snelling, University City, pro se.

John R. Essner, Legal Services of Eastern Mo., St. Louis, for respondent.

Before GERALD M. SMITH, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*MEMORANDUM DECISION*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals from the Circuit Court of St. Louis City’s denial of his Motion to Set Aside a consent judgment he entered into with defendant on September 18, 1991. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The Circuit Court’s denial is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman

, Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement

, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

December 4, 2018

s1126 

# Order

Clerk December 4, 2018

157708

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 157708

COA: 340638

Isabella CC: 03

- 000505

- FH

ERIK EDWARD THOMPSON

, Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the March 12 , 2018 order

of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2326-2327]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1080]



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


SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Minneapolis/St. Paul Advisory Council Meeting; Public Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Minneapolis/St. Paul 
District Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Friday, 
February 16, 

[[Page 2327]]
1996 at 11:30 am at the Sheraton Inn Midway, 400 North Hamline Avenue, 
Saint Paul, Minnesota to discuss matters as may be presented by 
members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others 
present.
    For further information, write or call Mr. Edward A. Daum, District 
Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 610-C Square, 100 North 
Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, (612) 370-2306.

    Dated: January 18, 1996.
Art DeCoursey,
Director, Office of Advisory Council.
[FR Doc. 96-1080 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION File Name: 22a0414n.06

No. 2 2

- 1114

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT

FADI ABI FAKHREDDINE and OLD JOY INVESTMENT COMPANY, INC.

, Plaintiffs

- Appellants,

v.

ERIC SABREE

, Defendant

- Appellee

. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED

STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

OPINION

Before: SUTTON

, Chief Judge; BOGGS and KETHLEDGE , Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM

. Fadi Abi Fakhreddine appeals the district court’s dismissal of his takings

claims under the U.S. Constitution against Wayne County and its Treasurer, Eric Sabree. For the

reasons stated in Hall v. Meisner , No. 21

- 1700, slip op. (6th Cir. Oct. 13, 2022), we reverse the

distri ct court’s dismissal and remand with instruction to proceed in accordance with that decision.
NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

OPTIMUM SERVICES, INC.,

Appellant

v.

SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR,

Appellee

______________________

2020-1087

______________________

Appeal from the Civilian Board of Contract Appeals in 

No. 4968, Administrative Judge Catherine B. Hyatt, Administrative Judge Harold C. "Chuck" Kullberg, Administrative Judge Joseph A. Vergilio.

______________________

JUDGMENT

______________________

JAMES COPELAND, Copeland Law Firm, LLC, Atlanta, 

GA, argued for appellant. 

 DANIEL B. VOLK, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for appellee. Also represented by JEFFREY 

B. CLARK, ROBERT EDWARD KIRSCHMAN, JR., PATRICIA M.

MCCARTHY; PAUL SAX, Office of the Solicitor, United States 

Department of Interior, Lakewood, CO. 

Case: 20-1087 Document: 64 Page: 1 Filed: 11/09/2020
 ______________________

THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is 

ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

 PER CURIAM (O’MALLEY, REYNA, and HUGHES, Circuit 

Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

 ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT 

November 9, 2020 

Date

/s/ Peter R. Marksteiner

Peter R. Marksteiner

Clerk of Court

Case: 20-1087 Document: 64 Page: 2 Filed: 11/09/2020
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 5658 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to require mail-in ballots to use 

the Postal Service barcode service, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

SEPTEMBER 21, 2023 

Ms. PORTER (for herself, Ms. MACE, Mr. MFUME, Mr. DONALDS, Mr. CONNOLLY, Mr. FITZPATRICK, Ms. NORTON, and Mr. CISCOMANI) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Oversight and 

Accountability 

A BILL 

To amend title 39, United States Code, to require mailin ballots to use the Postal Service barcode service, and 

for other purposes. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Vote by Mail Tracking 

5 Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
2 

•HR 5658 IH

1 SEC. 2. MAIL-IN BALLOTS AND POSTAL SERVICE BARCODE 

2 SERVICE. 

3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 3001 of title 39, United 

4 States Code, is amended by adding at the end the fol5 lowing: 

6 ‘‘(p) Any ballot sent within the United States for an 

7 election for Federal office is nonmailable and shall not be 

8 carried or delivered by mail unless the ballot is mailed in 

9 an envelope that— 

10 ‘‘(1) contains a Postal Service barcode (or suc11 cessive service or marking) that enables tracking of 

12 each individual ballot; 

13 ‘‘(2) satisfies requirements for ballot envelope 

14 design that the Postal Service may promulgate by 

15 regulation; 

16 ‘‘(3) satisfies requirements for machineable let17 ters that the Postal Service may promulgate by reg18 ulation; and 

19 ‘‘(4) includes the Official Election Mail Logo 

20 (or any successor label that the Postal Service may 

21 establish for ballots).’’. 

22 (b) APPLICATION.—The amendment made by sub23 section (a) shall apply to any election for Federal office 

24 occurring after the date of enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK7ZCZBW3PROD with $$_JOB
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED JULY 25, 2013

NO. 03-12-00083-CV

Steve Cokins and Anita Cokins, Individually and on Behalf of the North Brooks Hollow 

Road Area, Appellant

v.

City of Lakeway, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 200TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

AFFIRMED IN PART; REVERSED AND REMANDED IN PART --

OPINION BY JUSTICE FIELD;

CONCURRING OPINION BY CHIEF JUSTICE JONES

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that there was error in the following portions 

of the trial court’s judgment dismissing the Landowners’ claims that the annexation of the North 

Brooks Hollow Road Area is void: IT IS THEREFORE considered, adjudged and ordered that 

the judgment of the trial court is reversed as to those claims and that those portions of the cause 

be remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion. We 

affirm only that part of the judgment dismissing the Landowners’ procedural challenges to the 

City’s ordinance annexing the North Brooks Hollow Road Area. It is FURTHER ordered that 
each party shall bear their own costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court 

below; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
---

Exhibit 32.1

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

The undersigned, Christine Kilbourn, hereby certifies, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

|(1) | the Quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Intelbahn Inc. for
      the quarter ended April 30, 2008 (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 Intelbahn Inc..                                                                   

Dated: June 13, 2008

|/s/ Christine Kilbourn                                                        
|------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Christine Kilbourn                                                            
|President, Chief Executive Officer, Chief Financial Officer
      and Director
|(Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial
      Officer)           

A signed original of this written statement required by Section
906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the
signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this
written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to Intelbahn Inc.
and will be retained by Intelbahn Inc. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---