alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 162 (Wednesday, August 20, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 49236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-19257]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Maritime Administration


Marine Transportation System National Advisory Council

ACTION: National Advisory Council public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Maritime Administration announces that the Marine 
Transportation System National Advisory Council (MTSNAC) will hold a 
meeting to review and approve an updated and revised Intermodal Report, 
finalize an expanded Marine Transportation System outreach and 
education program to addresses the economic benefits that our ports and 
the Marine Transportation System contribute to the nation, and discuss 
other issues of importance to the Marine Transportation System. A 
public comment period is scheduled for 11:15 a.m.-11:45 p.m. on 
Wednesday, September 17, 2008. To provide time for as many people to 
speak as possible, speaking time for each individual will be limited to 
three minutes. Members of the public who would like to speak are asked 
to contact Richard J. Lolich by September 10, 2008. Commenter's will be 
placed on the agenda in the order in which notifications are received. 
If time allows, additional comments will be permitted. Copies of oral 
comments must be submitted in writing at the meeting. Additional 
written comments are welcome and must be filed by September 27, 2008.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Wednesday, September 17, 2008, from 
8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. and Thursday, September 18, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 
12 p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held in the Sheraton National Hotel, 900 
South Orme Street Arlington, Virginia 22204. The hotel's phone number 
is 703-521-1900.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Lolich, (202) 366-0704; 
Maritime Administration, MAR-540, Room W21-309, 1200 New Jersey Ave., 
SE., Washington, DC 20590-0001; <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#32405b515a5340561c5e5d5e5b515a72565d461c555d44"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="fd8f949e959c8f99d3919291949e95bd999289d39a928b">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. App 2, Sec. 9(a)(2); 41 CFR 101-6. 1005; DOT 
Order 1120.3B)

    By order of the Maritime Administration.

    Dated: August 13, 2008.
Leonard Sutter,
Secretary, Maritime Administration.

[FR Doc. E8-19257 Filed 8-19-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-81-P


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

No. 25559.

December 12, 1951.

Hon. James McMorries, Judge Presiding.

*Thomas & Thomas,*Big Spring, for appellant.

*George P. Blackburn,*State’s Attorney, Austin, for the state.

MORRISON, Judge.

The information upon which this prosecution rested was sufficient to charge the unlawful transportation of beer in a dry area; the punishment, a fine of $500.00.

*513That there were other charges in the same count of the information charging or attempting to charge the unlawful transportation of the beer, without reference to the dry or wet status of the area, would not render the information duplicitous, because different phases of the same offense, that is, the unlawful transportation of beer, may be charged conjunctively in the same count. Branch’s Penal Code, Section 508.

The statement of facts fails to evidence the dry status of Martin County, especially the publication order putting local option in effect. Baldridge v. State, 132 Tex. Cr. R. 590, 106 S. W. (2d) 700; Craig v. State, 145 Tex. Cr. R. 186, 167 S. W. (2d) 523; Langston v. State, 113 Tex. Cr. R. 388, 171 S. W. (2d) 371.

The facts being insufficient to support the conviction, the judgment is reversed and the cause remanded.
EXHIBIT 32.2


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


     I,  Mitchell  Binder, Chief Financial Officer of Orbit International Corp.,
certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.   1350, as enacted by  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act  of  2002,  that:
(1)     the  Quarterly  Report  on  Form  10-Q  for  the  quarterly period ended
September  30,  2008  (the  "Periodic  Report") which this statement accompanies
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act  of  1934;  and
(2)     information  contained  in  the  Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
material  respects,  the  financial condition and results of operations of Orbit
International  Corp.

Dated: November 19, 2008
                                   /s/ Mitchell Binder
                                   -------------------
                                   Mitchell Binder
                                   Chief Financial Officer

A  signed  original  of this written statement required by Section 906, or other
document  authenticating, acknowledging or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears  in  typed  form within the electronic version of this written statement
required by Section 906, has been provided to Orbit International Corp. and will
be  retained  by  Orbit  International Corp. and furnished to the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  or  its  staff  upon  request.
Order entered October 30, 2019

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 19
- 01047
- CV KEITH HERVEY, Appellant

V.
RENT A CENTER AND RA C CORPORATION, Appellee On Appeal from the 296th Judicial District Court

Collin County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 296
- 00467
- 2019



### O RDER Before the Court is appellant’s motion for inability to pay , dated October 20, 2019 and filed October 25, 2019

. Appellant seeks a waiver of the $205 appell ate court filing fee.
We note that by order dated September 27, 2019 we denied a similar motion as moot
because appellant had filed a statement of inability to afford payment of costs in the trial court and, u nder Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 20.1(b )(1), hi s indigence status in the trial court
carrie d forward to this Court. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 20.1(b)(1). Accordingly, because appellant is not required to pay costs, we also DENY the current motion as moot.
/s/ ROBERT D. BURNS, III CHIEF JUSTICE
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996             DEC-31-1995
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1996             SEP-30-1995
<CASH>                                         $32,569                $365,066
<SECURITIES>                                        $0                      $0
<RECEIVABLES>                               $7,129,438              $7,564,018
<ALLOWANCES>                                        $0                      $0
<INVENTORY>                                 $8,963,148              $8,477,834
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           $16,722,905             $17,431,225
<PP&E>                                     $17,596,855             $17,084,408
<DEPRECIATION>                             $11,976,001             $11,677,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             $22,931,297             $23,338,419
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      $12,374,088             $12,450,063
<BONDS>                                     $3,629,580              $4,192,277
<COMMON>                                      $174,926                $174,926
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               $0                      $0
<PREFERRED>                                         $0                      $0
<OTHER-SE>                                  $7,226,403              $7,147,378
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               $22,931,297             $23,338,419
<SALES>                                    $11,320,119             $11,774,110
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           $11,399,216             $11,919,902
<CGS>                                       $7,492,454              $7,534,372
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               $7,492,454              $7,534,372
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              $596,961                $515,517
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    $0                      $0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            $558,427                $575,827
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               $507,849                $911,741
<INCOME-TAX>                                  $203,139                $364,697
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           $304,710                $547,044
<DISCONTINUED>                                      $0                      $0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     $0                      $0
<CHANGES>                                           $0                      $0
<NET-INCOME>                                  $304,710                $547,044
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     $.59                   $1.05
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $.59                   $1.05
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                     EXHIBIT 24.3
                                           

                                  POWER OF ATTORNEY
                                           
KNOWN ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENT, that the undersigned, Patrick J. Lavelle,
constitutes and appoints Yehoram Uziel and Robert E. Kassel, or either of them,
his true and lawful attorneys-in-fact and agents, each with full power of
substitution and resubstitution, for him and in his name, place and stead, in
any and all capacities, to sign the Form 10-KSB, Annual Report of Soligen
Technologies, Inc., a Wyoming Corporation, for the fiscal year ended March 31,
1997, and any amendments or supplements thereto, and to file this Power of
Attorney and the Form 10-KSB, with all exhibits thereto, and other documents in
connection therewith with the Securities and Exchange Commission, the
Superintendent of the British Columbia Securities Commission, the American Stock
Exchange and the Vancouver Stock Exchange, granting unto each of said
attorneys-in-fact and agents full power and authority to do and perform each and
every act and thing requisite and necessary to be done in and about the
premises, as fully to all intents and purposes as he might or could do in
person, hereby ratifying and confirming all that each of said attorneys-fact and
agents, or his substitutes, may do or cause to be done by virtue hereof.

     Dated this   19th  day of June 1997
               ---------


Signature




/s/ PATRICK J. LAVELLE
----------------------------------------
Patrick J. Lavelle, Director
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350



In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, I, P. Chrisman Iribe, President of Gas Transmission Northwest
Corporation, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:



| | (1) |  | such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, 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 such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2003, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and
results of operations of Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation.
| | --- |  | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|November 7, 2003 |  | /s/    P. CHRISMAN
IRIBE   
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------
|                 |  | P. Chrisman Iribe President



A signed original of
this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and will be retained by Gas Transmission Northwest Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### People of the State of Illinois, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Taylor, Defendant-Appellant.

Gen. No. 49,867. (Abstract of Decision.)

First District, Second Division.

October 25, 1966.

*41Gerald W. Getty, Public Defender of Cook County, of Chicago (Frederick F. Cohn and James J. Doherty, Assistant Public Defenders, of counsel), for appellant; Daniel P. Ward, State’s Attorney of Cook County, of Chicago (Elmer C. Kissane and Truman Larrey, Assistant State’s Attorneys, of counsel), for appellee.

Opinion by MR. JUSTICE LYONS. Not to be published in full.
#### Mary K. SANOWSKI, Now known as Mary Russell, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY, a corporation; et al., Defendants—Appellees.

No. 02-35191.

D.C. No. CV-98-00358-RHW.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 21, 2003.

*989Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T.G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Mary K. Sanowski appeals pro se the district court’s orders denying her (1) motion for reconsideration of its previous order dismissing her action alleging breach of contract and consumer fraud, and (2) motion for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 over the district court’s order denying an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. We review for an abuse of discretion, *Nunley v. City of Los Angeles,*52 F.3d 792, 794 (9th Cir.1995), and we dismiss the appeal in part and affirm in part.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Sanowski’s motion for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal. The fact that Sanowski was traveling for several weeks and therefore did not receive her mail was not sufficient to establish good cause for an extension. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(5)(A). In addition, we reject Sanowski’s contention that her notice of appeal was timely pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 4(a)(1)(B) because the trustee in Sanowski’s bankruptcy case is not a party to this action.1

We also reject Sanowski’s contention that she timely appealed from the district court’s denial of her motion for reconsideration. Sanowski filed a “motion for extension of time to file appeal” within 80 days of the entry of the district court’s order denying reconsideration. But this motion was not the “functional equivalent” of a notice of appeal because it did not comply with Fed. R.App. P. 8(c)(1), which requires in part that a notice of appeal “name the court to which the appeal is taken.” *See Andrade v. Roe,*270 F.3d 743, 752 (9th Cir.2001) (timely motion for extension may serve as functional equivalent of a timely notice of appeal if it gives notice of the three elements required by Fed. R.App. P. 3(c)(1)), *rev’d on other grounds,*— U.S. —, 123 S.Ct. 1166, 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003). Accordingly, we lack jurisdiction to consider the district court’s denial of Sanowski’s motion for reconsideration.

Sanowski’s remaining contentions lack merit.

Appellee Wendle Properties, Inc., has requested an award of attorney’s fees and costs for defending a frivolous appeal. This request is denied without prejudice to the filing of a separate motion pursuant to Fed. R.App. P. 38 and 9th Cir. R. 39-1.

DISMISSED IN PART and AFFIRMED IN PART.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

1

. Sanowski’s motion to file a supplemental brief to address this issue is denied.
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 840 Engrossed in House (EH)]

  1st Session

                               H. R. 840

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
    at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, as the 
   ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
104th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 840

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
To designate the Federal building and United States courthouse located 
    at 215 South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, as the 
   ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States Courthouse''.

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

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

    The Federal building and United States courthouse located at 215 
South Evans Street in Greenville, North Carolina, shall be known and 
designated as the ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

    Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the Federal building and United States 
courthouse referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be a reference 
to the ``Walter B. Jones Federal Building and United States 
Courthouse''.

            Passed the House of Representatives December 5, 1995.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
```
Order entered February 12, 2014

In The



## Court of Appeals

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 12

- 01179

- CR

DERICK DEWAYNE EVANS

, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 363rd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Tria l Court Cause No. F1001193W



### O RDER

On February 7, 2014, appellant filed a Motion for Extension of Time to File Appellant’s

Motion for Rehearing. Appellant’s motion is GRANTED . It is ORDERED that the time for

filing appellant’s motion for rehearing is exte nded from February 7, 2014, to February 21, 2014.

/David Lewis/

DAVID LEWIS

JUSTICE
<PAGE>
 
                                                                      EXHIBIT 12

PG&E GAS TRANSMISSION, NORTHWEST CORPORATION
SEC FILING - FORM 10-Q - 1Q 1999
EXHIBIT 12 - RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 

<TABLE> 
<CAPTION> 
                                                                  For the Three Months Ended
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                                1999                  1998
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<S>                                                               <C>               <C> 
Earnings
    Net Income                                                    $     13.1        $    15.8
Adjustments
    Income taxes                                                         8.1             10.2
    Fixed charges (as below)                                            10.6             11.0
                                                                  ---------------------------
          Total adjusted earnings                                 $     31.8        $    37.0
                                                                  ===========================

Fixed charges:  (a)
    Net interest expense                                          $     10.2        $    10.9
 Adjustments:
    Interest component of rents                                            -                -
    AFUDC debt                                                           0.4              0.1
                                                                  ---------------------------
          Total fixed charges                                     $     10.6        $    11.0
                                                                  ===========================
 
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges                                       3.0              3.4
                                                                  ===========================
</TABLE> 
 
(a)  There were no shares of preferred stock issued or outstanding during the
     three months ended March 31, 1999 or March 31, 1998, and therefore, there
     were no fixed charges related to preferred stock during these periods.
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Haywood WILLIAMS, Jr., Defendant-Appellant.

No. 02-6951.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 4, 2003.

Decided March 26, 2003.

Haywood Williams, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

PER CURIAM.

Haywood Williams, Jr., appeals the district court’s order denying his motions for release of medical records, and for reconsideration. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the *606district court. *See United States v. Williams,*No. CR-44-71-N (E.D. Va. Jan. 24 *&*Mar. 28, 2002). 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.

*AFFIRMED.*