alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1899-1900]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-215]


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

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request for Review of a 
Revised Information Collection: RI 94-7

AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. 
L. 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of 
Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted to the Office of Management 
and Budget (OMB) a request for review of a revised information 
collection. RI 94-7, Death

[[Page 1900]]

Benefit Payment Rollover Election for Federal Employees Retirement 
System (FERS), provides FERS surviving spouses and former spouses with 
the means to elect payment of FERS rollover-eligible benefits directly 
or to an Individual Retirement Arrangement.
    Approximately 3,444 RI 94-7 forms will be completed annually. The 
form takes approximately 60 minutes to complete. The annual burden is 
3,444 hours.
    For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on 
(202) 606-8358, FAX (202) 418-3251 or via E-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4805293a310a2d3c20661b25213c20651c2727252d3108273825662f273e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bdf0dccfc4ffd8c9d593eed0d4c9d590e9d2d2d0d8c4fdd2cdd093dad2cb">[email protected]</span></a>. Please include a mailing address with your request.

DATES: Comments on this proposal should be received within 30 calendar 
days from the date of this publication.

ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to--
    Ronald W. Melton, Deputy Assistant Director Retirement Services 
Program, Center for Retirement and Insurance Services, U.S. Office of 
Personnel Management, 1900 E Street, NW., Room 3305, Washington, DC 
20415-3500 and Brenda Aguilar, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information 
& Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and Budget, New Executive 
Office Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503.
    For Information Regarding Administrative Coordination--
    Contact: Cyrus S. Benson, Team Leader, Publications Team, RIS 
Support Services/Support Group, (202) 606-0623.

U.S. Office of Personnel Management.
Howard Weizmann,
Deputy Director.
 [FR Doc. E8-215 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-38-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:04-cv-00298-PB Document 7 Filed 09/20/04 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           4,193
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   32,469
<ALLOWANCES>                                     3,192
<INVENTORY>                                      9,937
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                49,162
<PP&E>                                         376,119
<DEPRECIATION>                                 162,879
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 286,543
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           33,028
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            81
<OTHER-SE>                                   (221,365)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   286,543
<SALES>                                          8,756
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                47,017
<CGS>                                            5,003
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   26,751
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    57
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (10,202)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (5,872)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     (201)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (6,073)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (6,073)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.75)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.75)
        



</TABLE>
#### MATTHEWS et al. v. SPEARS.

No. 2769.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Jan. 31, 1946.

For prior opinion, see 24 So.2d 195.

I. F. Spears, of Pasadena, Cal., for appellant.

Elton A. Darsey, of Houma, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

In this case the defendant, I. H. Spears, filed an application for a rehearing on January 14, 1946. Notice of the opinion and decree was addressed to the defendant by registered letter and a return card was signed for I. H. Spears by his agent, Marion Lyles, on December 26, 1945. As we stated in the case of McCaskey Register Company v. Lumpkin et al., La.App., 197 So. 640, this court will accept a post office return receipt of a registered letter addressed to the attorney and signed by the purported agent of the addressee as evidence of the receipt of the notice by the attorney on the date shown on the receipt card, unless sufficient evidence is furnished that the person who signed for the attorney was not authorized to sign for and receive the letter. No evidence has been produced showing that the person who signed for I. H. Spears was not authorized to sign for and receive this letter for him.

Therefore, the time for filing the application began to run from December 26, 1945. The judgment of this court became final and executory on the fifteenth calendar day thereafter under the provisions of Act 16 of 1910 and the Constitution, and the application was not filed until several days after the expiration of the time limit. Following our ruling in the above case, there is nothing for us to do but refuse to consider the application of the defendant Spears for a rehearing as having been filed too late.

George Matthews, one of the appellees, also filed an application for a rehearing. After due consideration of this application, we see no reason to change our original decree or grant a rehearing to this applicant, and his application for a rehearing is hereby refused.
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1009

To repeal the prohibition on the payment of interest on demand deposits.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MARCH 13, 2001

Mr. TOOMEY (for himself, Mr. KANJORSKI, Mr. GONZALEZ, Mr. NEY, Ms.

HOOLEY of Oregon, Mrs. ROUKEMA, and Ms. CAPITO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services

A BILL

To repeal the prohibition on the payment of interest on

demand deposits.

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 ‘‘Business Checking

5 Freedom Act of 2001’’.

6 SEC. 2. INTEREST-BEARING TRANSACTION ACCOUNTS AU7 THORIZED.

8 (a) REPEAL OF PROHIBITION ON PAYMENT OF IN9 TEREST ON DEMAND DEPOSITS.—
2

•HR 1009 IH

1 (1) FEDERAL RESERVE ACT.—Section 19(i) of

2 the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371a) is amend3 ed to read as follows:

4 ‘‘(i) [Repealed]’’.

5 (2) HOME OWNERS’ LOAN ACT.—The first sen6 tence of section 5(b)(1)(B) of the Home Owners’

7 Loan Act (12 U.S.C. 1464(b)(1)(B)) is amended by

8 striking ‘‘savings association may not—’’ and all

9 that follows through ‘‘(ii) permit any’’ and inserting

10 ‘‘savings association may not permit any’’.

11 (3) FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE ACT.—Sec12 tion 18(g) of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12

13 U.S.C. 1828(g)) is amended to read as follows:

14 ‘‘(g) [Repealed]’’.

15 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by

16 subsection (a) shall take effect at the end of the 1-year

17 period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act.

Æ
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff, 

vs. 

WILLIAM T. RADER,

Defendant.

8:23CR119

ORDER

The court has been presented a Financial Affidavit (CJA Form 23) signed by the 

above-named defendant in support of a request for appointed counsel. After a review of 

the Financial Affidavit, I find that the above-named defendant is eligible for appointment 

of counsel pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act, 18 U.S.C. §3006A, and Amended 

Criminal Justice Act Plan for the District of Nebraska.

IT IS ORDERED that Matthew M. Munderloh is appointed as attorney of record 

for the above-named defendant in this matter and shall forthwith file an appearance in 

this matter.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Federal Public Defender’s Office shall 

forthwith provide counsel with a draft appointment order (CJA Form 20) bearing the 

name and other identifying information of the CJA Panel attorney identified in 

accordance with the Criminal Justice Act Plan for this district.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk shall provide a copy of this order to 

the Federal Public Defender for the District of Nebraska and Matthew M. Munderloh.

DATED this 23rd day of May, 2023.

BY THE COURT:

s/ Susan M. Bazis

United States Magistrate Judge

8:23-cr-00119-BCB-MDN Doc # 20 Filed: 05/23/23 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 47
Exhibit 99.2

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 Puget Energy, Inc. and Puget Sound Energy, Inc. (the Companies) on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the
date hereof (the Form 10-Q), I, Stephen A. McKeon, Senior Vice President Finance and Legal, Chief Financial Officer
of the Companies, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted
pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

| | (1) | The Form 10Q fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities
     Exchange Act of 1934; and
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| | (2) | The information contained in the Form 10Q fairly presents, in all material
respects, 
     the financial condition and result of operations of the Companies.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|Dated: November 8, 2002
|-----------------------
|                       
|                       
|
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 on Form 10-Q of deCODE genetics, Inc. (the "Registrant") for the quarter ended
September 30, 2007 as filed with the securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, Kari Stefansson, Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of
the Registrant, and Lance Thibault, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer of the Registrant, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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) that the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.

|Dated: November 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Kari StefanssonKari Stefansson
Chairman, President and Chief
Executive Officer
|----------------------- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: November 8, 2007 |  | /s/ Lance ThibaultLance Thibault
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer            

---



QuickLinks
SKIN

COLOR

VISIT 1

VERY LIGHT

LIGHT

INTERMEDIATE

TAN

BROWN

DARK

VISIT 21

415mm White Light Yellow Filter415mm White Light Yellow Filter

Examples of bruises on different skin colors observed 30 minutes (Visit 1) and four weeks (Visit 21) after bruise 

induction. Digital images taken using Canon T6i SLR with 50 mm fixed lens F2.2 ISO 400 with variable shutter 

speed and yellow filter.

Source: Scafide KRN, Sheridan DJ, Downing NR, Hayat MJ. Detection of Inflicted Bruises by Alternate Light: Results of a Randomized 

Controlled Trial. J Forensic Sci, July 2020;6(4):1191-1198. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14294 

DETECTING BRUISES WITH

WHITE LIGHT AND ALTERNATE LIGHT
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff, 

 vs. 

REYNALDO LAMPLEY, 

Defendant. 

8:23CR121 

THIRD 

AMENDED ORDER 

 

 This matter comes before the court on the Motion to Extend (Filing No. 50). After review 

of the motion and for good cause shown, the Court finds the requested extension should be granted. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Extend (Filing No. 50) is granted and the second 

amended order (Filing No. 49) is amended as follows: 

1. On or before May 22, 2024, the government shall file its brief in opposition to the 

defendant’s Restricted Motion to Suppress (Filing No. 40). See NECrimR 12.3(c). 

2. The telephone status conference on April 22, 2024, is cancelled. A telephone status 

conference to discuss prehearing matters and the scheduling of an evidentiary hearing 

will be held before the undersigned magistrate judge on May 22, 2024, at 11:30 AM. 

Counsel shall use the conferencing instructions at Filing No. 44 to participate in the 

call. 

3. All other deadlines are stayed pending further order of the court. 

 Dated this 12th day of April, 2024. 

BY THE COURT: 

s/ Michael D. Nelson 

United States Magistrate Judge 

8:23-cr-00121-RFR-MDN Doc # 51 Filed: 04/12/24 Page 1 of 1 - Page ID # 98
Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 1 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 2 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 3 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 4 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 5 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 6 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 7 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 8 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 9 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 10 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 11 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 12 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 13 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 14 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 15 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 16 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 17 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 18 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 19 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 20 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 21 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 22 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 23 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 24 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 25 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 26 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 27 of 28Case 1:05-cv-00330-SM Document 26 Filed 10/24/06 Page 28 of 28
#### ITEM CO., Limited, v. GOURGEOT et al.

No. 17074.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Orleans.

Nov. 3, 1941.

*483Deutsch and Kerrigan and Lehman K. Preis, all of New Orleans, for plaintiff •and appellee.

Defendants and appellants unrepresented.

JANVIER, Judge.

On March 14, 1938, the Item Company, Ltd., entered into a contract with Maxin Gourgeot under which it granted to him the exclusive right to deliver its newspapers to subscribers in a certain designated territory in New Orleans. Aimee ■Garidel and Martin J. Milhas signed the contract as sureties for Gourgeot up to the sum of $100.

On June 28, 1938, Item Company, Ltd., > brought this suit alleging that Gourgeot had failed to make certain payments and to keep certain records, and that by those failures he had breached the said contract, and had thus made himself liable for the amounts due and for liquidated damages, which damages under the terms of the ■contract, it contended should be fixed at $152.50. The amounts for which it alleged payment had not been made totalled $55.20. It therefore prayed for judgment against the said Gourgeot and his sureties in the sum of $207.70, with interest at 5% from judicial demand.

There was judgment by default in the sum of $100 against Milhas, one of the sureties, and after a trial there was also judgment in the sum of $207.70 against Gourgeot, and in the sum of $100 against Garidel, the other surety. From this latter judgment Gourgeot and Garidel have appealed.

The appeal of Garidel was dismissed on motion and the matter came before us only on the appeal by Gourgeot. The evidence shows, without any substantial contradiction, that Gourgeot did not remit to plaintiff the amount set forth in the statement filed by plaintiff and did not keep the proper records of the names and addresses of subscribers as required by the contract. It follows that as a result of the breach of the contract, plaintiff is entitled to liquidated damages as stipulated in the contract and as prayed for.

We are advised by counsel for plaintiff that there has been paid by the surety $198.45 and by Gourgeot $25 making a total of $223.45. There should be a credit on the judgment for the said amount.

The judgment appealed from, in so far as it runs against Gourgeot, is affirmed at his cost, subject to a credit of $223.45.

Judgment affirmed.
<PAGE>

                                                                Exhibit 32.2

                          CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                           18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350*


In connection with the Quarterly Report of PGI Incorporated (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Laurence A. Schiffer, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, 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.



/s/ Laurence A. Schiffer
----------------------------------------------
    Laurence A. Schiffer
    Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)    November 14, 2005


<FN>
*A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
  Company and will be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the
  Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6553

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

IRVIN JAYOINE LEE BAKER, a/k/a Fats,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern 

District of West Virginia, at Martinsburg. Gina M. Groh, Chief 

District Judge. (3:14-cr-00041-GMG-JES-1)

Submitted: August 25, 2016 Decided: August 30, 2016

Before NIEMEYER, DIAZ, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irvin Jayoine Lee Baker, Appellant Pro Se. Lynette Danae 

DeMasi-Lemon, Jarod James Douglas, Assistant United States 

Attorneys, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Irvin Jayoine Lee Baker appeals the district court’s orders

granting the Government’s motion to amend the preliminary order 

of forfeiture and denying Baker’s motions for an extension of 

time and stay of forfeiture. We have reviewed the record and 

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the 

reasons stated by the district court. United States v. Baker,

No. 3:14-cr-00041-GMG-JES-1 (N.D. W. Va. Apr. 5, 2016). We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### Hollister GARDNER; et al., Plaintiffs, Hollister Gardner, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. TULIA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT; Jeanett Herring, In her official capacity and in her individual capacity as Trustee; Sam Sadler, In his official capacity and in his individual capacity as Trustee; Scott Burrow, In his official capacity and in his individual capacity as Trustee; Anna Granado, In her official capacity and in her individual capacity as Trustee; Boyd Milner, In his official capacity and in his individual capacity as Trustee; Ben Howard, In his official capacity and in his individual capacity as Trustee; Gary Gardner, In his official capacity as Trustee, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-11341

Summary Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

July 31, 2003.

*315Before SMITH, DEMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.*

Hollister Gardner (Hollister) is a former student of a school in the Tulia Independent School District (TISD). While Hollister was attending TISD schools, he participated in extra curricular activity. In the fall of 1996, TISD’s board of trustees approved the development of a suspicionless, random student drug testing program for students involved in school-sponsored extra-curricular activities. The drug-testing program was implemented in January 1997.

Hollister appeals the district court’s denial of declaratory and injunctive relief from implementation of TISD's drug testing. Hollister fails to brief any claim he has for money damages stemming from the alleged unconstitutional policy, and he has waived any issue on appeal in that regard. *Yohey v. Collins,*985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir.1993). Because Hollister has graduated from high school, the instant appeal from the district court’s denial of declaratory and injunctive relief is moot. *Bd. of Sch. Comm’rs of Indianapolis v. Jacobs,*420 U.S. 128, 129, 95 S.Ct. 848, 43 L.Ed.2d 74 (1975) (per curiam); *McClelland v. Gronwaldt,*155 F.3d 507, 514 (5th Cir.1998). Hollister’s appeal is, therefore, DISMISSED.

The court notes that Hollister’s appellate brief contained expletives and discussion bordering on profane to support his argument that teenagers are easily embarrassed by urinalysis drug testing. Hollister is WARNED that this court will not tolerate such language in any future filings by Hollister.

TISD’s motion to file a supplemental brief is DENIED as unnecessary.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 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 Cir. R. 47.5.4.