alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 152 (Wednesday, August 6, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 45791-45792]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-17982]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND THE HUMANITIES


Meeting of Humanities Panel

AGENCY: The National Endowment for the Humanities.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Pub. L. 92-463, as amended), notice is hereby given that a meeting 
of the Humanities Panel will be held at the Old Post Office, 1100 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.

[[Page 45792]]


DATES: The meeting will be held Monday, August 11, 2008, at 9 a.m.-3 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in Room M-07 at the Old Post 
Office, 1100 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael P. McDonald, Advisory 
Committee Management Officer, National Endowment for the Humanities, 
Washington, DC 20506; telephone (202) 606-8322. Hearing-impaired 
individuals are advised that information on this matter may be obtained 
by contacting the Endowment's TDD terminal on (202) 606-8282.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The purpose of the meeting of the Humanities 
Panel is to solicit and collect advice and comments on the Endowment's 
EDSITEment program. EDSITEment is an online educational partnership 
between the Endowment and the Verizon foundation, Thinkfinity.org and 
can be accessed at http://edsitement.neh.gov/. The meeting is open to 
the public. A 10-minute time slot is reserved for public comments at 
the end of the meeting.

Michael P. McDonald,
Advisory Committee Management Officer.
 [FR Doc. E8-17982 Filed 8-5-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7536-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3894 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3894

                 For the relief of Margarito Domantay.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             July 24, 1996

Mr. Bilirakis introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                       Committee on the Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
                 For the relief of Margarito Domantay.

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

SECTION 1. SATISFACTION OF CLAIM AGAINST THE UNITED STATES.

    The Secretary of the Treasury shall pay, out of any funds in the 
Treasury not otherwise appropriated, to Petty Officer Margarito 
Domantay, United States Navy (retired), of Tampa, Florida, the amount 
of retired pay that he would have received for the period beginning on 
June 8, 1979, and ending on March 12, 1985, had he been initially 
retired in the grade of E-5, second class (rather than the grade of E-
4, third class, in which he was mistakenly retired due to 
administrative error).

SEC. 2. LIMITATION ON AGENT AND ATTORNEY FEES.

    It shall be unlawful for an amount exceeding 10 percent of the 
amount paid pursuant to section 1 to be paid to, or received by, any 
agent or attorney for any service rendered in connection with the claim 
described in such section. Any person who violates this section shall 
be guilty of an infraction, and shall be subject to a fine in the 
amount provided in title 18, United States Code.
                                 <all>
```
174 La. 456

#### HUTCHINGS v. JOHNSON et al.

No. 31075.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

March 30, 1932.

Dickson & Denny, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Barnette & Roberts, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

ST. PAUL, J.

There were other issues in this case which, however, have now passed out of it; and as to the sole remaining issue involved, this is a suit on, a promissory note for $3,900, signed by the defendant Jerry Johnson, and held by plaintiff.

The sole defense is that said note has been canceled by a certain written agreement entered into between the plaintiff and Johnson on May 8, 1930; which agreement, defendant urges, is a full and complete settlement of all the claims and differences then existing between them.

But the fact is that said agreement purports on its face to be one between the defendant on the one part and plaintiff on the other part, acting, however, not in his own individual behalf, but in behalf of the American Musical Attraction Company, a corporation; between whom serious differences then existed, and claims and counterclaims were outstanding; which differences, claims, and counterclaims, then existing between Johnson and said corporation are specially mentioned and provided for; after which follows a clause reading distinctly: “This agreement is to be in full and complete settlement of all claims existing between Jerry Johnson and the American Musical Attraction Co. Inc.”

No evidence was produced to show that in point of fact this was a settlement between plaintiff and Johnson, and not between Johnson and the corporation. And we do not see how any amount of oral or even other evidence could possibly serve to convert such an agreement into one between plaintiff and Johnson and not between Johnson and the corporation, thus closing indeed. the differences between plaintiff and Johnson, but also again setting at large the differences which formerly existed between Johnson and the corporation; contrary to the manifest purpose and clearly stated meaning of the agreement.

We think the trial Judge erred in refusing plaintiff a Judgment against Johnson.

Decree.

For the reasons assigned the Judgment rejecting plaintiff’s demand against Johnson is reversed; and it is now ordered that there be judgment in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant Jerry Johnson for the full sum of $3,900, with 8 per cent, per annum interest from October 18, 1929 until paid, with attorneys’ fees fixed at 10 per cent, of the principal, plus $10, and all costs of both courts.
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 ROADSHIPS HOLDINGS, INC. (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report'), I, Michael Nugent, Chief Executive Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge
and belief:
 
 (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.
 
 
 /s/ Michael
Nugent
 Michael
Nugent, Chief Executive Officer
 Date:
August 13, 2010
#### Terry HUNTER, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 69976.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

Nov. 5, 1996.

David Simpson, Asst. Public Defender, Columbia, for movanVappellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Kurt U. Schaefer, Asst. Attorney General, Jefferson City, for respondent/respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals the denial, without an evi-dentiary hearing, of his Rule 24.035 motion *903for post-conviction relief. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous, and 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).
Exhibit 13.2







CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. §1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







In connection with the Annual Report of MIGENIX Inc. (the Company) on Form 20-F for the year ended April 30, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Arthur J. Ayres, Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §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 this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.









/s/ Arthur J. Ayres

Arthur J. Ayres

Sr. Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer

August 1, 2007



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

TERRENCE GARRETT,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-13141

 vs. DISTRICT JUDGE AVERN COHN 

STATE TROOPER ADAMS, et.al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE DONALD A. SCHEER

 Defendants. 

____________________________/

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S MOTION

FOR DISCOVERY-DISCLOSURE

This cause comes before the Court on Plaintiff’s Motion for Discovery-Disclosure

filed on August 16, 2010 (Docket #62). Defendants separately filed responses opposing

the motion (Docket #62-#67). Plaintiff seeks to compel Defendants to produce the “name

and, if known, the address and telephone number of each individual likely to have

discoverable information that [Defendants] may use to support [their] claim”. Plaintiff seeks 

“all documents, electronically stored information and tangible things that are in the

possession, custody or control of the Defendants” that may be used to support their claims.

(Plaintiff’s Motion, pp. 1-2).

Defendants have already provided Plaintiff with a list of individuals that may possess

discoverable information. The docket reflects the fact that Defendants have supplied

Plaintiff with Witness Lists (Docket #53-55). Since discovery is currently ongoing,

Defendants will update their lists as they become aware of individuals, documents and

tangible items necessary to support their defense. 

Plaintiff also seeks depositions, interrogatories, medical records or any other

documents or information, which is to be produced “30 days before a trial date is set in this
matter.” (Plaintiff’s Motion, pp. 3 & 5). Presumably, Plaintiff’s vague and overly broad

request is based upon Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(a)(3)(B), which requires disclosure of evidence

that a party may present at trial 30 days prior to trial. As such disclosures are mandatory

unless the Court orders otherwise, no order from this Court is required to facilitate this

disclosure. 

SO ORDERED.

s/Donald A. Scheer 

DONALD A. SCHEER

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DATED: September 9, 2010

______________________________________________________________________

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify on September 9, 2010 that I electronically filed the foregoing paper

with the Clerk of the Court sending notification of such filing to all counsel registered

electronically. I hereby certify that a copy of this paper was mailed to the following nonregistered ECF participants on September 9, 2010: Terrence Garrett.

s/Michael E. Lang 

Deputy Clerk to 

Magistrate Judge Donald A. Scheer

(313) 234-5217

2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC
Form 10-K/A and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial
statements
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                       2,052,417
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,081,763
<ALLOWANCES>                                    34,245
<INVENTORY>                                  1,832,658
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             5,213,281
<PP&E>                                      25,711,877
<DEPRECIATION>                               3,205,389
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              32,627,609
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        5,335,200
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  2,000,000
<COMMON>                                        56,037
<OTHER-SE>                                   8,931,941
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                32,627,609
<SALES>                                     37,772,799
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            37,772,799
<CGS>                                        8,951,465
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               29,302,737
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,176,149
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,464,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                 (263,006)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,201,988)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,201,988)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.54)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.54)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 31.1

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                      SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT

I, Michael Noble, certify that:

1.   I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Lucky Strike
     Explorations Inc.;

2.   Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4.   I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and
     procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the
     registrant and have:

     a.   designed such disclosure controls and procedures 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 quarterly
          report is being prepared;
     b.   evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls
          and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of
          this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and
     c.   presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our
          evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.   I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's
     auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or
     persons performing the equivalent functions):

     a.   all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal
          controls which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to
          record, process, summarize and report financial data and have
          identified for the registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in
          internal controls; and
     b.   any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal
          controls; and

6.   I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were
     significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could
     significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most
     recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to
     significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this certification as of the
6th day of August, 2007.


/s/ Michael Noble
---------------------------
Chief Executive Officer
#### STATE of Missouri, Appellant, v. Brent Todd GRISHAM, Respondent.

No. 20357.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

March 19, 1996.

Steven H. Kaderly, Barton Co. Prosecuting Attorney, Lamar, for appellant.

Ronald W. Conway, Reynolds & Conway, P.C., Springfield, for respondent.

PREWITT, Presiding Judge.

On February 26, 1995, Respondent was arrested in Barton County, Missouri, for driving while intoxicated. Section 577.010, RSMo 1994. His breathalyzer test revealed an alcohol concentration of more than ten-hundredths of one percent. Pursuant to § 302.505.1, RSMo 1994, Respondent’s operator’s license was administratively suspended. Respondent was also charged with driving while intoxicated.

Respondent moved to dismiss the charge, alleging that the earlier administrative suspension of his driving privileges constituted punishment for the same conduct giving rise to the charge and, therefore, he was faced with double jeopardy. The trial court dis*927missed the charge, finding that the suspension of Respondent’s driving privileges was not “solely remedial” and therefore constituted punishment within the meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. Pursuant to § 547.200.2, RSMo 1994, the State appeals 1.

The dispositive issue on appeal is whether the suspension of Respondent’s driving privileges constituted punishment under the Double Jeopardy Clause so as to preclude a later prosecution where both proceedings are based on the same conduct. Under almost identical facts, the Missouri Supreme Court in *State v. Mayo,*915 S.W.2d 758 (Mo. banc 1996), determined that the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a driving-while-intoxicated prosecution after a revocation or suspension under § 302.500, et seq. We are constitutionally bound to follow the controlling decisions of the Missouri Supreme Court. *State v. Isom,*906 S.W.2d 870, 875 (Mo.App.1995); Article V, Section 2 of the Missouri Constitution (1945).

Based on *Mayo,*we reverse the judgment of dismissal. The case is remanded for further proceedings.

CROW and PARRISH, JJ., concur.

1

. Respondent asserts in his "Jurisdictional Statement," that the State's appeal is not timely. On the authority of *State v. Brown,*722 S.W.2d 613, 616-18 (Mo.App.1986), we determine that the State timely appealed.
#### Billy KELLY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. WD 52207.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Jan. 21, 1997.

Kent Denzel, Assistant Public Defender, Columbia, for Appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Attorney General, Jill C. LaHue, Assistant Attorney General, Jefferson City, for Respondent.

Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and BERREY and EDWIN H. SMITH, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appeal from denial of appellant’s amended Rule 24.035 motion for postconviction relief without an evidentiary hearing.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                           UT
<LEGEND>
     THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
     FROM THE BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT
     OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY 
     REFERENCE TO THE BALANCE SHEET, INCOME STATEMENT AND CASH FLOW
     STATEMENT OF ILLINOVA CORPORATION.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000914755                               
<NAME>                        ILLINOVA CORPORATION                       
<SUBSIDIARY>
   <NUMBER>                   0                                 
   <NAME>                     0                     
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000,000
<CURRENCY>                                     Default
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1997
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<BOOK-VALUE>                                   PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                      4678
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                    199
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                         520
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                       186
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 5583
<COMMON>                                       1318
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                      0
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                            52
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                 1370
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          197
<PREFERRED>                                    57
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                           1609
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                             144
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                      0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                 271
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                  69
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                      0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                    108
<LEASES-CURRENT>                               19
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                 1739
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                  5583
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                      2509
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                           80
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     2185
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                     2265
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                        244
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                             14
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                 258
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       153
<NET-INCOME>                                   (91)
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                    0
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                  (90)
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                        92
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                      116
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                         368
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (1.22)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.22)
        
</TABLE>