alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 49160-49161]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19200]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

    The Department of Commerce will submit to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) for clearance the following proposal for collection of 
information under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 
U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Agency: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
    Title: Atlantic Highly Migratory Species Vessel and Gear Marking.
    Form Number(s): None.

[[Page 49161]]

    OMB Approval Number: 0648-0373.
    Type of Request: Regular submission.
    Burden Hours: 6,995.
    Number of Respondents: 6,886.
    Average Hours Per Response: Vessel marking, 45 minutes; gear 
marking, 15 minutes.
    Needs and Uses: Under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 
Conservation and Management Act (codified at 50 CFR 635.6), and in 
order to comply with United States obligations under the Atlantic Tunas 
Convention Act, fishing vessels permitted for Atlantic Highly Migratory 
Species must display their official vessel numbers on their vessels to 
assist law enforcement in monitoring fishing and other activities. 
Floatation devices attached to certain fishing gear must also be marked 
with the vessel's official numbers to identify gear and catch deployed 
beneath the surface. This is also necessary for law enforcement 
purposes.
    Affected Public: Business or other for-profit organizations.
    Frequency: Annually.
    Respondent's Obligation: Mandatory.
    OMB Desk Officer: David Rostker, (202) 395-3897.
    Copies of the above information collection proposal can be obtained 
by calling or writing Diana Hynek, Departmental Paperwork Clearance 
Officer, (202) 482-0266, Department of Commerce, Room 6625, 14th and 
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20230 (or via the Internet at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8bc90a1b6bdb398bcb7bbf6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91f5d9e8fff4fad1f5fef2bff6fee7">[email protected]</span></a>).
    Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collection should be sent within 30 days of publication of this notice 
to David Rostker, OMB Desk Officer, FAX number (202) 395-7285, or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5b1f3a2d323f040934282f303e291b343639753e342b753c342d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="2c684d5a4548737e435f5847495e6c43414e0249435c024b435a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: August 14, 2008.
Gwellnar Banks,
Management Analyst, Office of the Chief Information Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-19200 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
I 

117TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 6058 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds for 

a certain study on per- and polyfluoroalkyl substance contamination 

in drinking water, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

NOVEMBER 19, 2021 

Ms. DEAN introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To extend the authority of the Secretary of Defense to transfer funds for a certain study on per- and polyfluoroalkyl 

substance contamination in drinking water, 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 ‘‘PFAS Health Study 

5 Act of 2021’’. 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 6058 IH

1 SEC. 2. EXTENSION OF AUTHORITY OF SECRETARY OF DE2 FENSE TO TRANSFER FUNDS FOR A CERTAIN 

3 STUDY ON PER- AND POLYFLUOROALKYL 

4 SUBSTANCE CONTAMINATION IN DRINKING 

5 WATER. 

6 Section 316(a)(2)(B)(ii) of the National Defense Au7 thorization Act for Fiscal Year 2018 (Public Law 115– 

8 91; 131 Stat. 1350), as amended by section 315(a) of the 

9 John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for 

10 Fiscal Year 2019 (Public Law 115–232; 132 Stat. 1713), 

11 section 321 of the National Defense Authorization Act for 

12 Fiscal Year 2020 (Public Law 116–92; 133 Stat. 1307), 

13 and section 337 of the William M. (Mac) Thornberry Na14 tional Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2021 

15 (Public Law 116–283), is further amended by striking 

16 ‘‘fiscal years 2019, 2020, and 2021’’ and inserting ‘‘fiscal 

17 years 2019 through 2023’’. 

Æ 


pbinns on DSKJLVW7X2PROD with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 159 (Friday, August 15, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 47897-47903]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-18640]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

[Transmittal Nos. 08-59]


36(b)(1) Arms Sales Notification

AGENCY: Department of Defense, Defense Security Cooperation Agency.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense is publishing the unclassified text 
of a section 36(b)(1) arms sales notification. This is published to 
fulfill the requirements of section 155 of Public Law 104-164 dated 21 
July 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. B. English, DSCA/DBO/CFM, (703) 
601-3740. The following is a copy of a letter to the Speaker of the 
House of Representatives, Transmittals 08-59 with attached transmittal, 
policy justification, and Sensitivity of Technology.

    Dated: August 5, 2008.
Patricia L. Toppings,
OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.[GPO: Photo 
to end]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-M

[[Page 47898]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.037


[[Page 47899]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.038


[[Page 47900]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.039


[[Page 47901]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.040


[[Page 47902]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN15AU08.041


[[Page 47903]]


[FR Doc. E8-18640 Filed 8-14-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-06-C
EXHIBIT 12





PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION

SEC FILINGFORM 10-QFirst Quarter 2003

EXHIBIT 12RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES

($ in millions)



|                                   |  | For the Three Months Ended
|---------------------------------- |  | --------------------------
|                                   |  | 2003                      
|Ratio of earnings to Fixed Charges |  |                           
|                                  
|Earnings                           |  |                           
|Net income                         |  | $                         
|Adjustments:                       |  |                           
|Income taxes                       |  |                           
|Fixed charges (as below)           |  |                           
|                                   |  |                           
|Total adjusted earnings            |  | $                         
|                                   |  |                           
|                                  
|Fixed charges:                     |  |                           
|Net interest expense               |  | $                         
|Adjustments:                       |  |                           
|Interest component of rents        |  |                           
|AFUDC debt                         |  |                           
|                                   |  |                           
|Total fixed charges                |  | $                         
|                                   |  |                           
|Ratio of earnings to fixed charges |  |                           
|                                   |  |
OREGON METALLURGICAL CORPORATION

                                   EXHIBIT 11.1


                          Earnings per share computation
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                        Three Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                        __________________
                                   (in thousands except per share data)

                                                          1995         1994
                                                          ____         ____

<S>                                                     <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $   (439)    $   (400)
                                                        ========     ========

Weighted average shares outstanding                       10,911       10,893

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
 issued from Excess Benefit Plan                             114          ---

Weighted average share equivalents
 assumed issued from exercise of warrants                     89          ---

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
 issued as part of Employee Compensation Policy              167          ---
                                                        ________     ________
Weighted average share and share
 equivalents outstanding                                  11,281       10,893

Net income (loss) per share                             $  (0.04)    $  (0.03)
                                                        ========     ========


<CAPTION>
                                                        Nine Months Ended
                                                           September 30,
                                                        __________________
                                   (in thousands except per share data)

                                                          1995         1994
                                                          ____         ____

<S>                                                     <C>          <C>
Net income (loss)                                       $    549     $ (2,086)
                                                        ========     ========

Weighted average shares outstanding                       10,905       10,891

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
 issued from Excess Benefit Plan                             123          ---

Weighted average share equivalents
 assumed issued from exercise of warrants                     58          ---

Weighted average share equivalents assumed
 issued as part of Employee Compensation Policy              100          ---
                                                        ________     ________
Weighted average share and share
 equivalents outstanding                                  11,186       10,891

Net income (loss) per share                             $  (0.05)    $  (0.19)
                                                        ========     ========

Earnings per share computed on both the primary and fully diluted
bases are the same.

</TABLE>
Exhibit 12
 GARDNER
    DENVER, INC.
    COMPUTATION OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
    (Dollars in thousands)  YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31,2008


2007


2006


2005


2004Earnings:Income before income taxes

$
233,466



268,360



200,615



95,644



52,286Fixed charges


33,709



33,034



43,530



35,746



12,704Earnings, as defined

$
267,175



301,394



244,145



131,390



64,990Fixed Charges:Interest expense

$
25,483



26,211



37,379



30,433



10,102Rentals - portion representative of interest


8,226



6,823



6,151



5,313



2,602Total fixed charges

$
33,709



33,034



43,530



35,746



12,704Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges


7.9
x


9.1
x


5.6
x


3.7
x


5.1x
United States Court of Appeals

for the Fifth Circuit

No. 22-50248

Summary Calendar

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cruz Aguirre Cruz, 

Defendant—Appellant,

consolidated with

_____________

No. 22-50264

_____________

United States of America, 

Plaintiff—Appellee,

versus

Cruz Aguirre-Cruz, 

Defendant—Appellant.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

October 6, 2022

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

Case: 22-50248 Document: 00516499944 Page: 1 Date Filed: 10/06/2022
No. 22-50248

c/w No. 22-50264

2

Appeals from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 4:21-CR-1001-1

USDC No. 4:18-CR-596-2

Before Stewart, Duncan, and Wilson, Circuit Judges.

Per Curiam:*

Cruz Aguirre Cruz appeals his guilty plea conviction and sentence for 

illegal reentry after deportation under 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2). He also 

appeals the district court’s order revoking the term of supervised release he 

was serving at the time of the offense. Because his appellate brief does not 

address the revocation or the revocation sentence, he abandons any challenge 

to that order. See Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993). 

On appeal, Aguirre Cruz argues that the recidivism enhancement in

§ 1326(b) is unconstitutional because it permits a sentence above the 

otherwise-applicable statutory maximum established by § 1326(a), based on 

facts that are neither alleged in the indictment nor found by a jury beyond a 

reasonable doubt. While Aguirre Cruz acknowledges this argument is 

foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v. United States, 523 U.S. 224 (1998), he 

nevertheless seeks to preserve it for possible Supreme Court review. 

Accordingly, he has filed an unopposed motion for summary disposition. 

We have held that subsequent Supreme Court decisions such as 

Alleyne v. United States, 570 U.S. 99 (2013), and Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 

U.S. 466 (2000), did not overrule Almendarez-Torres. See United States v. 

Pervis, 937 F.3d 546, 553-54 (5th Cir. 2019). Thus, Aguirre Cruz is correct 

that his argument is foreclosed. Because his position “is clearly right as a 

* Pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 47.5, the court has determined that this 

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited 

circumstances set forth in 5th Circuit Rule 47.5.4.

Case: 22-50248 Document: 00516499944 Page: 2 Date Filed: 10/06/2022
No. 22-50248

c/w No. 22-50264

3

matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome 

of the case,” summary affirmance is proper. Groendyke Transp., Inc. v. Davis, 

406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969).

Accordingly, Aguirre Cruz’s motion for summary disposition is 

GRANTED, and the judgments of the district court are AFFIRMED. 

 

Case: 22-50248 Document: 00516499944 Page: 3 Date Filed: 10/06/2022
Exhibit 21.1

LIST OF SUBSIDIARIES



|                                         |  |                              |  | 
|---------------------------------------- |  | ---------------------------- |  | 
|Name of Subsidiary                       |  | Jurisdiction ofIncorporation |  | 
|1. DSP Group Ltd.                        |  | Israel                       |  | 
|2. Nihon DSP K.K.                        |  | Japan                        |  | 
|3. RF Integrated Systems, Inc.           |  | Delaware, U.S.               |  | 
|4. DSPG Edinburgh Ltd.                   |  | Scotland                     |  | 
|6. DSP Group Switzerland AG              |  | Switzerland                  |  | 
|7. DSPG Technologies GmbH                |  | Germany                      |  | 
|8. DSP Group HK Limited                  |  | Hong Kong                    |  | 
|9. DSP Technology Indian Private Limited |  | India                        |  |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from CSL LIGHTING
MANUFACTURING INC. and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such
financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                            DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      152,000
<SECURITIES>                                      0
<RECEIVABLES>                             2,422,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                194,000
<INVENTORY>                               4,346,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                          7,304,000
<PP&E>                                    3,061,000
<DEPRECIATION>                            1,696,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            8,785,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                     4,311,000
<BONDS>                                   1,850,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             0
<PREFERRED>                                       0
<COMMON>                                 16,211,000
<OTHER-SE>                              (13,587,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              8,785,000
<SALES>                                  13,160,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                         13,160,000
<CGS>                                     7,988,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                             6,806,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             51,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                             60,000
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                        1,249,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (2,934,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                  1,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                      (2,935,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                    0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                   0
<CHANGES>                                         0
<NET-INCOME>                             (2,935,000)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (.26)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.26)



</TABLE>
CASE NO. 04-14-00483-CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS ROWLAND J. MARTIN, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS ADMNISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OFJOHNNIE MAE KING, Appellant

v. EDWARD BRAVENEC AND 1216 WESTAVE., INC. Appellees 1 \i<
FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT^ CO -•' •••-

CO ro . • •
BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS APPELLANT'S ADVISORY TO THE COURT AND NOTICE OF AMENDMENTS TO APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF TO THE HONORABLE FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS: NOW COMES ROWLAND J. MARTIN, JR., Appellant in the above entitled and numbered cause, and files this, his "Advisory to The CourtAnd Notice of Amendments To Appellant's Opening Brief," in support ofwhich the following is shown: 

### Notice is hereby given that Appellant has filed an "ExpeditedAmendedMotionTo Strike, "in which Appellant requests the Fifth Circuit Court ofAppeals to strike Appellees' Responding Briefin Fifth Circuit Case No. 14-50093. See, Exhibits A, B and C. The motion advises the U.S. Court ofAppeals that Appellees are parties to a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, (SLAPP) and that Appellees' attempt to invoke appellatejurisdiction is unwarranted insofar as their Responding Briefasks that Court to apply the collateral orderrule to grant untimely and unsupported requests for affirmative reliefinvolving Western District Case No. SA 11 -CV-0414 in the pending collateral review in Case No. 14-50093. Out ofan abundance ofcaution to reserve all lines ofargument, and to avoid unintended waivers in connection with a future reply brief, Appellant requests notice that his opening briefis hereby
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 4337 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 4337

  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit extensions of credit 
   under any open end consumer credit plan the proceeds of which the 
creditor knows or has reason to believe are being used or will be used 
 by the consumer to make any form of wager or bet, to play any game of 
      chance, or use any gambling device, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            October 1, 1996

 Mr. LaFalce introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
              Committee on Banking and Financial Services

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
  To amend the Truth in Lending Act to prohibit extensions of credit 
   under any open end consumer credit plan the proceeds of which the 
creditor knows or has reason to believe are being used or will be used 
 by the consumer to make any form of wager or bet, to play any game of 
      chance, or use any gambling device, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Gambling Credit Reform Act''.

SEC. 2. PROHIBITIONS ON EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT FOR GAMBLING.

    (a) In General.--Chapter 2 of the Truth in Lending Act (15 U.S.C. 
1631 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
section:

``SEC. 140. PROHIBITIONS ON EXTENSIONS OF CREDIT FOR GAMBLING.

    ``(a) In General.--No creditor may extend any credit to any 
consumer under any open end consumer credit plan if the creditor knows 
or has reason to believe that the proceeds of such extension of credit 
are being used or will be used by the consumer to make any form of 
wager or bet, to play any game of chance, to use any gambling device, 
or to otherwise participate in gambling at any gambling establishment.
    ``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this section, the following 
definitions shall apply:
            ``(1) Gambling device.--The term `gambling device' has the 
        meaning given to such term in section 41311(b) of title 49, 
        United States Code.
            ``(2) Gambling establishment.--The term `gambling 
        establishment' has the meaning given to such term in section 
        1081 of title 18, United States Code.''.
    (b) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for chapter 2 of the 
Truth in Lending Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to 
section 139 the following new item:

``140. Prohibitions on extensions of credit for gambling.''.
                                 <all>
```
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA

FOURTH DISTRICT

ALEX BRENT PINKARD,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

No. 4D17-3956

[July 12, 2018]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm 

Beach County; Samantha Schosberg Feuer, Judge; L.T. Case No. 

502017CF005744AXXXXMB.

Carey Haughwout, Public Defender, and Alan T. Lipson, Assistant 

Public Defender, West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Marc B. 

Hernandez, Assistant Attorney General, West Palm Beach, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.

DAMOORGIAN, LEVINE and KUNTZ, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-7456
DONALD L. PHILLIPS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus HARRY W. GARRETT, JR.; ANN K. SHIPP, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge. (CA-97-629-R) Submitted: June 18, 1998 Decided: July 2, 1998 Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Donald L. Phillips, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant, a Virginia inmate, appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1915A (West Supp. 1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find that this appeal is frivolous. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Phillips v. Garrett , No. CA-97-629-R (W.D. Va. Sept. 17, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED