alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 108 (Tuesday, June 4, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 28248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-13894]



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

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
[Notice 96-054]


Notice of Prospective Patent License

AGENCY: National Aeronautics and Space Administration.

ACTION: Notice of Prospective Patent License.

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

SUMMARY: NASA hereby gives notice that NextGen Systems, Incorporated, 
1006 W. Ninth Avenue, King Of Prussia, Pennsylvania 19406, has applied 
for an exclusive license to practice the invention disclosed in NASA 
Case No. LAR-15,367-1, entitled ``Method for Visually Integrating 
Multiple Data Acquisition Technologies for Real Time and Retrospective 
Analysis'' (also known as ``Crew Response Evaluation Window (CREW)''), 
for which a U.S. Patent Application was filed on April 3, 1996 by the 
United States of America as represented by the Administrator of the 
National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Written objections to 
the prospective grant of a license should be sent to Ms. Robin W. 
Edwards, Patent Attorney, Langley Research Center.

DATE: Responses to this notice must be received by August 5, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Robin W. Edwards, Patent Attorney, NASA Langley Research Center, 
Mail Code 212, Hampton, VA 23681; (804) 864-3230.

    Dated: May 24, 1996.
Edward A. Frankle,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-13894 Filed 6-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
EXHIBIT32

 

CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO

18U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

Inconnection with the Annual Report of Accessory Specialists Incorporated (the "Company")on Form 10-KSB for the period ended December 31, 2003, as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),I, Anthony N. DeMint, President and Chief Accounting Officer of the Company,certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

-  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or        15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; andThe information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material        respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the        Company.
/s/Anthony N.DeMint                            

AnthonyN. DeMint

Presidentand Chief Accounting Officer

February6, 2004
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 22-1725

SARAHI ALEJANDRA CALDERON-CARDOZA; C.J.M.C.,

 Petitioners,

v.

MERRICK B. GARLAND, Attorney General,

 Respondent.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals.

Submitted: March 14, 2023 Decided: August 17, 2023

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

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion.

ON BRIEF: Rebekah G. Grafton, FAY GRAFTON NUNEZ, PLLC, Raleigh, North 

Carolina, for Petitioners. Brian Boynton, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Cindy S. Ferrier, Assistant Director, Tracie N. Jones, Office of Immigration Litigation, 

Civil Division, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for 

Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Sarahi Alejandra Calderon-Cardoza and her minor child, natives and citizens of 

Honduras, petition for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) 

dismissing Calderon-Cardoza’s appeal from the Immigration Judge’s denial of her

applications for asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the Convention 

Against Torture (CAT). We have thoroughly reviewed the record and conclude that the 

evidence does not compel a ruling contrary to any of the administrative factual findings, 

see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(B), and that substantial evidence supports the denial of relief, 

see INS v. Elias-Zacarias, 502 U.S. 478, 481 (1992). Accordingly, we deny the petition 

for review for the reasons stated by the Board. In re Calderon-Cardoza (B.I.A. June 21, 

2022). 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.

PETITION DENIED

USCA4 Appeal: 22-1725 Doc: 23 Filed: 08/17/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 31.1

 

 

I, Kevin R. Hoben, Chief Executive Officer, Omega Flex, Inc., certify that: 

 

1.        I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for fiscal quarter ended June 30, 2006, of Omega Flex, Inc. (the “registrant”); 

 

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

 

3.        Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

 

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

 

 (a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared; 

 

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

 

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

 

5.               The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions): 

 

 (a)          All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses (if any) in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and 

 

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

 

Date:  June 30, 2006 

 

/s/ Kevin R. Hoben__________________________

 

Kevin R. Hoben

Chief Executive Officer

 

 

|   | Page 1 |
|--------|--------|
## 1996 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit
8-15-1996 

# C o alit ion S a

ve v . B d E d DE

P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : D ocke t 95-7452

F o l lo w thi s a nd a dd it ion al w ork s a t : h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou gh t t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t a t e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit a t V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. It h as be e n a c c e pt e d for inclusion in 1996 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr a t or of V i l l a no va U nive r sit y S choo l of L a

w Di g it al Re posit or y

. F or mor e infor m a t ion, p le as e c on t a ct Be n j a min
. C a rl s on@l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du

. 

## Re c omme nde d C it a t ion

" C o al it ion S a

v e v . Bd E d DE " (1996). 1996 D e cisio n s . P ape r 111. h tt p://d i g it alc ommon s .l a

w . v i l l a no va . e du/thir dc ir c uit_1996/111

### UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

__________________ No. 95-7452

__________________ COALITION TO SAVE OUR CHILDREN, Appella nt

v BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE STATE OF D ELAWARE; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE CHRISTIANA SCHOOL D ISTRICT; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE BRANDYWINE SCHOOL D ISTRICT; BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE COLONIAL SCHOOL DI STRICT; THE BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE RED CLAY SCHOOL DISTRICT; DELAWARE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES COMMITTEE ON D ESEGREGATION

__________________ Appeal from the United States District Co urt for the District of Delaware (D.C. Civil No. 56-01816)

__________________ Argued: Tuesday, March 12, 1996 Before: NYGAARD, SAROKIN and ALDISERT, Circuit Judges

__________________ ORDER AMENDING OPINION

__________________ IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Slip Opinion filed in this case on July 24, 1996, be amended as follows: Page 17, footnote 8, line 27: Substitute "[An ex pert called y the Appellee House of Representatives,]" for "[Another Coalition expert,] ." By the Cour t: /s/ Ruggero J. Aldisert Ruggero J. Aldisert Circuit Jud ge
Dated: August 15, 1996
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

Robert Angel Ramirez,

Plaintiff,

v. 

Corizon Health, et al.,

Defendants.

No. CV-18-00004-PHX-DWL

ORDER 

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United 

States Magistrate Judge (Doc. 73). The R&R, which was issued on January 30, 2020, 

recommends “that the Court dismiss without prejudice Defendant Brisbois from Plaintiff’s 

Complaint (Doc. 1) for failure to serve pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m).” (Doc. 73 at 3.) 

The R&R further states that “[t]he parties shall have fourteen days from the date of service 

of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the 

Court.” (Id.) 

Here, no such objections have been filed. Thus, the Court accepts the Magistrate 

Judge’s recommendation. See, e.g., Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985) (“It does 

not appear that Congress intended to require district court review of a magistrate’s factual 

or legal conclusions, under a de novo or any other standard, when neither party objects to 

those findings.”); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (“[N]o 

review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation unless objections are 

filed.”). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) 
- 2 -

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations 

de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). 

Accordingly,

IT IS ORDERED that the R&R’s recommended disposition (Doc. 73) is accepted.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Brisbois is dismissed from this 

action, the dismissal being without prejudice.

Dated this 27th day of February, 2020.
N OTE : This order is nonprecedential. 

# United States Court of Appeals **for the Federal Circuit**

__________________________ GALE FLETCHER ANDERS ON , Petitioner,

v. OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT , Respondent.

__________________________ 201 3-30 51

__________________________ Petition for review of the Merit Systems Protection Board in No

. DC844E120086 -I-1.

__________________________ ON MOTION

__________________________
O R D E R

Gale Anderson moves for a six

- month extension of time to obtain counsel. This court no tes that Anderson was previously granted 120 days to obtain counsel or file the opening brief.
Upon consideration thereof , I T I S O RDERED T HAT : Case: 13-3051 Document: 10 Page: 1 Filed: 06/17/2013GALE ANDERSON v. OPM 2
The motion for an extension of time is granted to the extent that Gale Anderson has 60 days from the date of th is order to file h er opening brief (form enclosed)

. No further extensions should be anticipated.

F OR T HE C OURT

/s/ Daniel E. O’Toole Daniel E. O’Toole Clerk

s21 Case: 13-3051 Document: 10 Page: 2 Filed: 06/17/2013
#### Willard Jay MILLER, Appellant, v. Mark S. FISHER, Prosecuting Attorney, Respondent.

No. 69978.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Aug. 27, 1996.

Mary P. Carroll, St. Louis, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Tyrone A. Taborn, City Counselor, Edward J. Hanlon, Deputy City Counselor, Patricia Hegeman, Asst. City Counselor, St. Louis, for Defendant/Respondent.

Before DOWD, P.J., and REINHARD and GARY M. GAERTNER, JJ.

*577ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff, pro se, appeals the dismissal of his action under §§ 56.060 and 106.220, RSMo 1994, against defendant, the prosecuting attorney of Pike County, for failure to execute and enforce the criminal laws of the State of Missouri. No error of law appears. An extended opinion would have no prece-dential value. We affirm the trial court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 10.6


                           E. W. BLANCH HOLDINGS, INC.
                            MANAGEMENT INCENTIVE PLAN

This document explains the terms of the Management Incentive Plan (the Plan) of
E. W. Blanch Holdings, Inc. (the Company, Holdings, or Holdings Company).

Participants

              Edgar W. Blanch, Jr.         Chris L. Walker
              Rodman R. Fox                Kaj Ahlmann


Funding

The sum of the following two components equals the total amount of the Plan
pool:

1.   20% of the 2000 pre-tax profits in excess of 20% growth over 1999 pre-tax
     profits, adjusted for the 1999 Plan expense.

2.   37.5% of the aggregate amount awarded to the E. W. Blanch Holdings, Inc,
     Incentive Plan (for all other employees) will be allocated to the bonus
     pool.

Any stock acquisitions or stock offerings may require adjustment to the
measurement of earnings to ensure that the cost of capital is recognized.

Allocation and Payment

Mr. Blanch shall be paid 50% of the Plan pool. The Committee may not increase
this percentage allocation, but may, at its discretion, reduce it. Awards will
be allocated to the other participants from the remaining funds in the Plan
pool, based upon the Committee's judgment of their performance and contributions
during the year. Additionally, individual bonuses paid to the participants may
not exceed 100% of their respective base salaries.

Funds available for distribution shall be paid no later than March 15, 2001. In
order to be eligible to receive an award, a participant must be an employee of
the Company on the date such award is to be paid.

Administration and Amendments

The Company's shareholders must approve the Plan. The Plan shall then be
administered, construed and interpreted by the Committee. The Plan shall be
effective for the Company's 2000 fiscal year.

The Committee may require that Plan participants enter into written
participation agreements, in such form or forms as the Committee shall deem
appropriate.
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Roger Mohlman, certify that:

> 
1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of	American Water Star, Inc.;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and	other financial information included in this annual report, fairly present	in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and	cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods	presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officers	and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls	and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e))	for the small business issuer and have:

(a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures,		or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under		our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the		small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made		known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the		period in which this report is being prepared;

(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business		issuer disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report		our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and		procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on		such evaluation; and

(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small		business issuer's internal control over financial reporting that		occurred during the small business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter		(the small business issuer's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an		annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to		materially affect, the small business issuer's internal control over		financial reporting; and

> 
5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer(s)	and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal	control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors of	the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the	equivalent functions):

(a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses inthe design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involvesmanagement or other employees who have a significant role in the small businessissuer's internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: June 2, 2005

/s/ Roger Mohlman                                  Roger MohlmanChief Executive Officer and President
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 101 (Thursday, May 23, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 25929]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-12897]



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


RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD

Agency Forms Submitted for OMB Review

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35), the Railroad Retirement Board has submitted the 
following proposal(s) for the collection of information to the Office 
of Management and Budget for review and approval.

Summary of Proposal(s)

    (1) Collection title: Employee Noncovered Service Pension 
Questionnaire.
    (2) Form(s) submitted: G-209.
    (3) OMB Number: 3220-0154.
    (4) Expiration date of current OMB clearance: July 31, 1996.
    (5) Type of request: Extension of a currently approved collection.
    (6) Respondents: Individuals or households.
    (7) Estimated annual number of respondents: 500.
    (8) Total annual responses: 500.
    (9) Total annual reporting hours: 55.
    (10) Collection description: Under Section 3 of the Railroad 
Retirement Act, the Tier I portion of an employee annuity may be 
subjected to a reduction for benefits received based on work not 
covered under the Social Security Act or Railroad Retirement Act. The 
questionnaire obtains the information needed to determine if the 
reduction applies and the amount of such reduction.

Additional Information or Comments

    Copies of the form and supporting documents can be obtained from 
Chuck
    Mierzwa, the agency clearance officer (312-751-3363). Comments 
regarding the information collection should be addressed to Ronald J. 
Hodapp, Railroad Retirement Board, 844 North Rush Street, Chicago, 
Illinois 60611-2092 and the OMB reviewer, Laura Oliven (202-395-7316), 
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10230, New Executive Office 
building, Washington, D.C. 20503.
Chuck Mierzwa,
Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-12897 Filed 5-22-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7905-01-M
#### Charles SCHULTZ, Appellant, v. UNIT DISTRIBUTION OF MISSOURI, Respondent.

No. 62770.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 15, 1993.

Thomas J. Gregory, St. Louis, for appellant.

Loretta Simon, Marylou Calzaretta, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Employee appeals the final award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (Commission) denying his workers’ compensation claim. We find sufficient competent evidence to warrant the Commission’s denial and affirm. § 287.495, RSMo Supp.1992.

We also determine an opinion in this matter would have no precedential value. Rule *85984.16(b). A memorandum has been provided for the parties’ use only.