alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34423]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16833]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Public Information Collection Requirement Submitted to the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB) for Review

ACTION: Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title and OMB Control Number: Youth Attitude Tracking Study (YATS); 
OMB Number 0704-0069.
    Type of Request: Revision.
    Number of Respondents: 13,050.
    Responses per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 13,050.
    Average Burden per Response: 26 minutes.
    Annual Burden Hours: 5,618 hours.
    Needs and Uses: The information collected by YATS is utilized by 
the Department of Defense to ascertain changes in youth attitudes that 
affect recruiting budgets, and to support analyses of recruiting 
incentives and diagnoses of recruiting difficulties.
    Approximately 10,000 young men and women between the ages of 16 and 
24 are interviewed by telephone each Fall to determine attitudes and 
opinions affecting military recruiting. On occasion, additional 
interviews of approximately 3,000 youth are conducted in the Spring or 
Summer, but not in the same year, when an information requirement 
precludes waiting for the normally scheduled Fall interviews. YATS 
provides an independent measure of youth awareness of military service 
recruitment advertising, and an efficient measure of potential 
incentives such as increased educational benefits. The collected 
information is also used to optimize the allocation of resources and to 
evaluate the effect of policy changes, as well as in the preparation of 
Congressional testimony regarding the state of recruiting.
    Affected Public: Individuals and households.
    Frequency: Annually and on occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Voluntary.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. William Pearce.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Pearce, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.

    Dated: June 26, 1996.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 96-16833 Filed 7-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5000-04-M
2:09-cv-10236-SJM-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 01/21/09 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 1
2:09-cv-10236-SJM-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 01/21/09 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 2
2:09-cv-10236-SJM-SDP Doc # 1 Filed 01/21/09 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3
# STATEOFLOUISIANA



# COURTOFAPPEAL,FIRSTCIRCUIT
STATE OF LOUISIANA 

### VERSUS STEVEN JERMAINE CHARLES NO. 

### 2021 KW 1112
JANUARY 10, 

### 2022

In Re: 

### Steven Jermaine 

### Charles, applying for 

### supervisory writs, 

### 22nd Judicial District 

### Court, Parish of 

### St. 

## Tammany, No. 548792.
BEFORE: GUIDRY, HOLDRIDGE, AND CHUTZ, JJ.

WRIT GRANTED. The 

### district court' s 

### ruling 

## denying relator' s application 

### for postconviction relief 

### is vacated. 

### This matter is remanded to the 

### district court to reconsider 

### its 

### ruling in light of 

### State v. Harris, 

### 2018- 1012 ( La. 

### 7/9/20), _ So.3d 2020 WL 

### 3867207 and to allow the state to 

### file a response, 

### if 

## it has not alreadydone so. After the state 

### files 

### its response, 

### the district court 

### should determine whether 

### it is necessary to conduct an 

### evidentiary 

## hearing on the claim of 

### ineffective assistance of counsel at 

### sentencing. State v. Robinson, 

### 2019-01330 ( La. 

### 11/24/20), 304 So.3d 846 ( per curiam). JMG GH 

### WRC

COURT OF APPEAL, FIRST CIRCUIT

VkV 

# k DEPUTY LERK OF COURT

FOR THE COURT
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS IN CITADEL BROADCASTING COMPANY'S FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED
DECEMBER 31, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1
<CURRENCY> U.S. DOLLARS
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                      1
<CASH>                                     102,841,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                               35,383,403
<ALLOWANCES>                               (1,186,546)
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           165,147,900
<PP&E>                                      46,736,259
<DEPRECIATION>                            (12,651,469)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             472,260,929
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       15,547,278
<BONDS>                                    210,091,437
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      116,775,393
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            40
<OTHER-SE>                                 103,962,796
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               472,260,929
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           135,426,261<F1>
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               96,652,681
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            26,414,242
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             1,201,341
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          18,126,262
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (5,317,255)
<INCOME-TAX>                               (1,386,219)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (18,516,878)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                              (18,516,878)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                 (462.92)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                 (462.92)
<FN>
<F1>Comprised of net revenues (gross revenues net of agency commissions).
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No. 1 of
WebSafety, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarter ended March 31, 2010, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Rowland W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.




By:
                  /s/ Rowland W. Day IIRowland
      W. Day IIPrincipal
      Executive Officer




Dated:
October 7, 2010




This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q/A Amendment No.
1 pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,
except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for
purpose of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as
amended.




A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
##### 



EXHIBIT 10.8
 
 
  
  
 st
 
   1.
    
    The account balance shall be credited as of the last day of each quarter with an
amount equivalent to interest for that quarter. Such amount shall be computed by
multiplying the account balance at the beginning of the quarter by a fraction, the
numerator of which is a rate equal to 100% of the prime rate as published in the Wall
Street Journal on the first day of the quarter, and the denominator of which is 4.
 1




---



##### 



2.
    
    Next, the account shall be credited with the amount, if any, of Directors fees
deferred during that quarter. A separate record of deferred Directors fees and applicable
interest shall be maintained by the Company for each participant in the Plan. The
computations of the Company with respect to the amount equivalent to interest shall be
conclusive and binding.
 
  
  
  
  
  2




---



##### 



3
|   | (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. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:      November 13, 2009 | By:  |   /s/ Robert J.      McNulty                                            |
|------------------------------|-----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                         |      |        Robert      J. McNulty                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|                         |      |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|                         |      | Chief      Executive Officer (principal executiveofficer)                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                |

----
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 118 (Tuesday, June 18, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 30866]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-15360]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket Nos. GT96-48-001 and GT96-63-001]


Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Refund 
Report

June 12, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 4, 1996, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing with the Commission an 
amendment of a refund report in accordance with Section 3 of Transco's 
Rate Schedule GSS.
    Transco states that on May 13, 1996, it refunded $290,545.53 to its 
LSS and GSS customers. The refund was due Transco's customers from a 
CNG Transmission Corporation refund in Docket Nos. RP94-96 and RP94-213 
(consolidated) for the period July 1, 1994 through December 31, 1995. 
On May 29, 1996, Transco states that it paid interest of $2,609.87 on 
the GSS portion of this refund. Therefore, the amended refund paid on 
May 29, 1996, is $293,155.40.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE., 
Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211). All such protests 
must be filed on or before June 18, 1996. Protests will be considered 
by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, 
but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the proceeding. 
Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and are available 
for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-15360 Filed 6-17-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
H. Res. 808 

In the House of Representatives, U. S., 

October 8, 2009. 

Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall 

be in order to consider the conference report to accompany 

the bill (H.R. 2647) to authorize appropriations for fiscal 

year 2010 for military activities of the Department of Defense, for military construction, and for defense activities of 

the Department of Energy, to prescribe military personnel 

strengths for such fiscal year, to provide special pays and allowances to certain members of the Armed Forces, expand 

concurrent receipt of military retirement and VA disability 

benefits to disabled military retirees, and for other purposes. 

All points of order against the conference report and against 

its consideration are waived. The conference report shall be 

considered as read. The previous question shall be considered 

as ordered on the conference report to its adoption without 

intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate; and (2) 

one motion to recommit if applicable. 

SEC. 2. Upon the adoption of the conference report the 

House shall be considered to have adopted the concurrent 
2 

•HRES 808 EH 

resolution (H. Con. Res. 196) making corrections in the enrollment of the bill H.R. 2647. 

Attest: 

Clerk.
# U ni te d S ta te s Co ur t of A pp ea ls For the Eig hth Circu it

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 5- 24 78

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ Uni te d S ta te s o f Am eri ca ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Pla in ti

ff - App el le e
v. Jo hn at ha n S . Mo se r ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll ll l Defe nd

an t - Ap pe llan t

__ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i - Kan sa s C it y

__ __ __ __ __ __ Subm it te d: Octo be r 13 , 20 15 Fi le d: Octo be r 16 , 20 15 [Unpubl is he d]

__ __ __ __ __ __ Befo re WOL LMAN, BYE, andGRUENDER, Circu itJu dg es .

__ __ __ __ __ __ PER CURI AM. Jo hn at ha n Mo se r di rect ly ap pe al s th e se nt en ce th at th e di st ric t co ur t im po se d 1 up on rev ok in g hi s supe rv is ed rel eas e, arg ui ng th at th e 18 -m on th se nt en ce, wh ic h i s The Hon or ab le Dav id Greg ory Kay s, Ch ie f Ju dg e, Uni te d St at es D ist rict Co ur t 1 fo r th e Weste rn Dis tri ctof M is so ur i.ab ov e th e ad vi s o ry Gui de li ne s ran ge , is su bs ta nt iv el y un reas on ab le
. Upo n care fu l

rev ie w, se e Uni te d St at es v. Mi ll er, 55 7 F.3 d 91 0, 91 5- 16 (8 th Ci r. 20 09 ) (ap pe ll at e rev ie w of rev oc at io n se nt en ce), we co nc lu de th at th e rev oc at io n se nt en ce i s no t un reas on ab le , as th e di st ric t co ur t ga ve su ffi ci en t reas on s to supp or t th e se nt en ce. See U n i t e d St at es v. Lari so n, 43 2 F.3 d 92 1, 92 4 (8 th Ci r. 20 06 ) (aff irming st a t u t o ry m ax im um r e v o c a t io n se nt en ce whe re di st ric t co urt jus ti fie d de ci si on by gi vi ng supp orti ng reas on s) . W e g ran t co un se l’s m ot io n t o wi th dr aw. The jud gm en t i s af

firm ed
.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __

-2
-
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 this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of WebSafety, Inc. (the
“Company”) for the quarter ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Rowland
W. Day II, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, do hereby certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my 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.




By:
                            /s/
      Rowland W. Day IIRowland
      W. Day IIPrincipal
      Executive Officer





Dated:  November
22, 2010





This
certification accompanies this report on Form 10-Q pursuant to Section 906 of
the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by
such Act, be deemed filed by the Company for purpose of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.





A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906, another 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 WebSafety, Inc. and will be retained and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
EXHIBIT 21.1

                         SUBSIDIARIES OF THE REGISTRANT

1.   Liberty Acquisition Corporation, a Tennessee corporation and wholly owned
     subsidiary of EDT Learning, Inc.

2.   Special Omega Acquisition Corporation, a Delaware corporation and wholly
     owned subsidiary of EDT Learning, Inc.

3.   Pentegra Investments, Inc., a Delaware corporation and wholly owned
     subsidiary of EDT Learning, Inc.

4.   Edge Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and wholly owned
     subsidiary of EDT Learning. Inc.

5.   TW Acquisition Subsidiary, Inc., a Delaware Corporation and wholly owned
     subsidiary of EDT Learning, Inc.
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 Quarterly Report of PharMerica Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-Q
for the quarter ended June 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Gregory S. Weishar, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as
adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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



/s/    GREGORY S.
WEISHARGregory S. Weishar Chief Executive Officer and Director August 31, 2007
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF JULY AND

 AUGUST, 2009, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of July and August,

2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel

should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility

in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-

5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court

commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 08-14750 CBS OUTDOOR V. CITY OF EASTPOINTE

2. 08-14320 HEALY V. SEARS, ROBUCK & CO.

3. 08-12929 CYRS V. PEAKE

4. 08-13158 LOCAL 324 PENSION FUND, ET.AL V. WEST MICHIGAN EARTH

 MANAGEMENT, ET. AL

5. 08-14793 COLMAR USA V. SOMMA

6. 09-10033 SALEH V. HOME LOAN SERVICES

7. 08-13501 HOWARD V. WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET.AL

8. 07-13132 FIRST PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH V. H.A.HOWELL PIPE ORGANS, ET.AL

9. 08-11326 MAXWELL V. DODD, ET.AL

10.08-14467 FLANAGAN V. STEWART, ET.AL

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: June 9, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on June 9, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:08-cv-14793-PJD-MJH Doc # 21 Filed 06/09/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 120
**EXHIBIT 8.1.** 

 

**LIST OF EDAP TMS S.A. SUBSIDIARIES**

**(as of March 31, 2009)**

 

 

| **Name of Subsidiary**  | **Juridiction of Incorporation** |
|-------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                    |                             |
| EDAP TMS France  S.A.   | France                           |
| EDAP Technomed S.r.l.   | Italy                            |
| EDAP Technomed, Inc.    | United States                    |
| EDAP Technomed Co. Ltd. | Japan                            |
| EDAP Technomed Sdn Bhd  | Malaysia                         |
| EDAP TMS GmbH           | Germany                          |
|                    |                             |
|                    |                             |

 

 

 

|   |   |   |
|--------|--------|--------|
#### Douglas STONE, Appellant, v. John Michael DOWNING, Respondent.

No. WD 51734.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

July 30, 1996.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Oct. 1, 1996.

Application to Transfer Denied Nov. 19, 1996.

Mark A. Richardson, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Ronald R. McMillin, Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before LAURA DENVIR STITH, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM:

Douglas Stone appeals from an order of summary judgment in favor of John Michael Downing in Stone’s actions for injuries which occurred in a basketball game. The trial court granted summary judgment on the ground that the risk of the injury in question was assumed by Mr. Stone, as a primary assumption of risk.

The judgment is affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).