alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 182 (Thursday, September 18, 2008)]
[Presidential Documents]
[Page 54285]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-21975]




                        Presidential Documents 



Federal Register / Vol. 73, No. 182 / Thursday, September 18, 2008 / 
Presidential Documents

___________________________________________________________________

Title 3--
The President

[[Page 54285]]

                Presidential Determination No. 2008-25 of August 28, 
                2008

                
Memorandum for the Secretary of State

                Emergency Fund Drawdown to Assist Georgian Victims of 
                Conflict

                By the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
                the laws of the United States, including sections 2 and 
                4(a)(1) of the Migration and Refugee Assistance Act of 
                1962 (the ``Act''), as amended, (22 U.S.C. 2601 and 
                2603) and section 301 of title 3, United States Code:

                (1) I hereby determine, pursuant to section 2(c)(1) of 
                the Act, that it is important to the national interest 
                to furnish assistance under the Act, in an amount not 
                to exceed $5.75 million from the United States 
                Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance Fund, for 
                the purpose of meeting unexpected and urgent refugee 
                and migration needs, including by contributions to 
                international, governmental, and nongovernmental 
                organizations and payment of administrative expenses of 
                the Bureau of Population, Refugees, and Migration of 
                the Department of State, related to the humanitarian 
                needs of conflict victims and those displaced by recent 
                violence in Georgia.

                (2) I hereby assign to you the functions of the 
                President in relation to this memorandum under section 
                2(d) of the Act, and of establishing terms and 
                conditions under section 2(c)(1) of the Act, and you 
                may further assign such functions to your subordinates, 
                consistent with applicable law.

                You are authorized and directed to publish this 
                memorandum in the Federal Register .
                <GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT>
                
                    (Presidential Sig.)

                THE WHITE HOUSE,

                    Washington, August 28, 2008

[FR Doc. E8-21975
Filed 9-17-08; 8:45 am]
Billing code 4710-10-P
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1394

To increase the maximum amount of defense funds that may be obligated

to carry out the National Guard civilian youth opportunities program.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

APRIL 4, 2001

Mr. DEFAZIO introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To increase the maximum amount of defense funds that

may be obligated to carry out the National Guard civilian

youth opportunities program.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. FUNDING LIMITATION FOR NATIONAL GUARD

4 YOUTH CHALLENGE PROGRAM.

5 Section 509(b)(2)(A) of title 32, United States Code,

6 is amended by striking ‘‘$62,500,000’’ and inserting

7 ‘‘$110,000,000’’.

Æ
#### In the Matter of John W. McCLURE and Annie B. McClure, His Wife, Petitioners. John W. McCLURE, Annie B. McClure, George B. McClure and John E. McClure, Appellants, v. Louis James ROSENBERG, Receiver of John W. McClure and Annie B. McClure, His Wife, Appellee.

Circuit Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Feb. 14, 1938.

Davis & Hodge, of Royal Oak, Mich., for appellants.

Before HICKS, SIMONS, and ALLEN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing to this -honorable court that the District Court of the United States for the Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, did on the 31st day of January, A. D., 1938, enter its order dismissing all proceedings in said court in cause No. 22994, in Bankruptcy, section 75, as amended, 11 U.S.C.A. § 203 including certain orders to show cause issued out of said court, and did thereby withdraw from controversy all questions of law and fact upon which the review of this honorable court was sought; and that by reason thereof it is advisable to dismiss the appellants’ petition for review in the above entitled cause, upon motion made by Robert W. Hodge, attorney for appellants herein, it is hereby ordered that the said appeal be, and the same is, hereby dismissed; and it is hereby further ordered that the appellants, John W. McClure, Annie B. McClure, George B. McClure, and John E. McClure, as principals, and the New Amsterdam Casualty Company, as surety, be, and they are, hereby discharged from all further liability for court costs herein and released from their bond filed with this court conditioned for the payment thereof.

Dismissed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND> This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from 
the accompanying financial statements and is qualified in its entirety by 
reference to such financial statements. 
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                          8,287 
<SECURITIES>                                        0 
<RECEIVABLES>                                     639 
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0 
<INVENTORY>                                         0 
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                9,059       
<PP&E>                                        125,845
<DEPRECIATION>                                 11,126    
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                149,313      
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,190    
<BONDS>                                        95,955  
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0 
<PREFERRED>                                         0 
<COMMON>                                           72 
<OTHER-SE>                                     26,972       
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  149,313         
<SALES>                                        17,732          
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               17,814          
<CGS>                                               0          
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  16,317          
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   58       
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0      
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              1,873       
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (34)       
<INCOME-TAX>                                    (143)     
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               109      
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0  
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0      
<CHANGES>                                           0  
<NET-INCOME>                                      109 
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.02 
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.02 
<FN>
NOTE: Brookdale Living Communities, Inc. commenced operations on May 7, 1997. As
      such, the actual period covered for the period January 1, 1997 through 
      September 30, 1997, is May 7, 1997 through September 30, 1997.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT
32





AMASYS
CORPORATION





CERTIFICATION


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


(SUBSECTIONS
(a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18,


UNITED
STATES CODE)








Pursuant
to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b)
of section 1350, chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code), the
undersigned officer of Amasys Corporation (the “Company”), does hereby certify
with respect to the Quarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period
ended September 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the “Report”), to the best of the undersigned’s knowledge
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 the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.








November
      12, 2008/s/
      C.W. Gilluly, Ed.D.President
      and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit



Exhibit 10.45





AMENDMENT NO.12 TO THE
NONEXCLUSIVE VALUE ADDED DISTRIBUTOR AGREEMENT




This Amendment No. 12 ("the Amendment") to the Nonexclusive Value Added Distributor Agreement by and between ScanSource, Inc. ("Distributor"), a South Carolina corporation with a place of business at 6 Logue Court, Greenville, South Carolina, 29615, and Cisco Systems, Inc., a California corporation having its principal place of business at 170 West Tasman Drive, San Jose, CA 95134 ("Cisco"), is effective as of the date of last signature below (the "Amendment Effective Date"). All capitalized terms contained herein shall have the same meaning as the terms defined in the Agreement unless specifically modified in this Amendment.


WHEREAS, Cisco and Distributor previously entered into a Nonexclusive Value Added Distributor Agreement dated January 22, 2007, as amended (the "Agreement"); and


WHEREAS, Cisco and Distributor desire to extend the Term of the Agreement;


NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises set forth herein and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby expressly acknowledged by all of the parties to this Amendment, Cisco and Distributor hereby represent, covenant and agree as follows:


		
	1.
	The Term of the Agreement is hereby renewed for two (2) years from the Effective Date, unless sooner terminated as provided for in the Agreement. If the Agreement expired prior to the Amendment Effective Date, any orders received and Products and Services purchased between the date of expiration and the Amendment Effective Date shall be in all respects deemed made under the Agreement as in effect prior to this Amendment. The parties further agree that if Distributor places Purchase Orders after the expiration of the Agreement, and Cisco accepts such Purchase Orders, then any such Purchase Orders shall be governed by the terms and conditions of the Agreement; provided, however that acceptance by Cisco of any Purchase Order placed after the Agreement has expired will not be considered as an extension of the term of the Agreement nor a renewal thereof. Notwithstanding Cisco's right to extend the term of the Agreement, each party acknowledges that the Agreement shall always be interpreted as being limited in duration to a definite term and that the other party has made no commitments whatsoever regarding the renewal of the Agreement beyond those expressly agreed in writing."




		
	2.
	This Amendment may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which when so executed and delivered will be an original and all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Facsimile signatures and electronic signatures will be deemed to be equivalent to original signatures for purposes of this Amendment.




		
	3.
	All other terms of the Agreement remain the same. Capitalized terms in the Amendment shall have the same meaning as those terms have in the Agreement.
#### STRAWBERRY & VEGETABLE AUCTION, Inc., v. RAILWAY EXPRESS AGENCY, Inc.

No. 1036.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. First Circuit.

Oct. 5, 1932.

S. S. Reid, of Amite, for appellant.

Carroll Buck, of Amite, for appellee.

LE BLANC, J.

The demand here presented is for the loss in value of a shipment of strawberries alleged to have been caused by improper handling on the part of the defendant Express Company. From a judgment dismissing its suit on an exception of no right of action, the plaintiff has taken this appeal.

The shipment originated in the parish of Tangipahoa on April 16, 1930; part of the berries having been loaded at Pontchatoula and the rest at Hammond. In the petition, it is alleged that, after the berries had been loaded, the car was consigned to plaintiff’s order at Mattoon, in the state of Illinois, and that the defendant issued to plaintiff its negotiable receipt or bill of lading accordingly, the “car being subject to diversion to other destination upon the timely filing of diversion order.” In paragraph 8 of the petition, plaintiff alleges “that on April 16, 1930, after said car was loaded, and was delivered to and accepted by the defendant for shipment, the berries therein loaded were sold by petitioner to H. Rouw for the sum of $2.75 per crate, net to petitioner, the purchaser to pay all transportation charges,” etc. Thereafter, in paragraph 9, it is alleged that the berries were diverted from their original destination by the purchaser, Hugh Rouw, to Litman Produce Company, at Kansas City, in the state of Missouri, at which point they were delivered on April 18, 1930.

From the allegations of the petition, it seems evident that there had been a complete sale of the strawbendes. The price was fixed and determined between the parties and a delivery effected and accepted by the purchaser, who, in addition, exercised an act of ownership by diverting the shipment from its original destination.

Under a shipment, and the circumstances as disclosed in plaintiff’s petition, the berries had become the property either of H. Rouw or his consignee, Litman Produce Co., in Kansas City. See Sonia Cotton Oil Co., Ltd., v. The Red River et al., 106 La. 42, 30 So. 303, 87 Am. St. Rep. 293. The plaintiff, having parted with its title to and ownership of the berries, is without right to maintain the present action.

The exception was correctly sustained, and the judgment of the lower court is therefore affirmed.
PAGE <1>

                                  Exhibit 99.1

                               Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Executive Officer
                        Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                        As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                         Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
President of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby certify, based on my
knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of the Company for the
quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies with the
requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that
information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



     Dated: August 8, 2005

                                               JOHN H. ALEXANDER
                                               -----------------
                                               John H. Alexander
                                                   President


























PAGE <1>

                                   Exhibit 99.2

                                Pyramid Oil Company

                   Certification of the Chief Financial Officer
                       Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350
                       As Adopted Pursuant to Section 906
                        Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


Solely for the purposes of complying with 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted
pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, the undersigned
Chief Financial Officer of Pyramid Oil Company (the "Company"), hereby
certify, based on my knowledge, that the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of
the Company for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 (the "Report") fully complies
with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934
and that information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.




     Date: August 8, 2005

                                                LEE G. CHRISTIANSON
                                                -------------------
                                                Lee G. Christianson
                                              Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-45-01-PB

Kristyn Graham

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

May 2, 2006 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to complete discovery and prepare a defense. The

government does not object to a continuance of the trial date.

Accordingly, in order to allow the parties additional time

to complete discovery and properly prepare for trial, the court

will continue the trial from May 2, 2006 to July 6, 2006. In

agreeing to continue the trial, the court finds pursuant to 18

U.S.C.A. § 3161(h)(8)(A) that for the above-stated reasons, the

ends of justice served in granting a continuance outweigh the

best interests of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial.

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 9 Filed 04/18/06 Page 1 of 2
2

The April 19, 2006 final pretrial conference is continued

until June 27, 2006 at 4:00 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

April 18, 2006

cc: Paul Garrity, Esq.

Alfred Rubega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00045-PB Document 9 Filed 04/18/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND

GORDON C. REID

v. C.A. No . 06-44S

WARREN F . DOWALIBY,

Superintendent, Strafford County

Department of Corrections, et als.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIO N

Lincoln D. Almond, United States Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff, Gordon C. Reid filed his Complaint on May 12, 2006 . Before the Court are

Defendant Warren Dowaliby's Motion to Dismiss (Document No . 23) and Defendant Steven

Monier's Motion to Dismiss (Document No . 24), which have been referred to this Court for

preliminary review, findings and recommended disposition. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR Cv 72(a).

These Motions were directed atPlaintiffs original Complaint. Before any action was taken on these

two Motions, Plaintiff filed a Motion to Amend, which this Court granted . See Stein v. Royal Bank

of Canada , 239 F.3d 389, 392 (1s` Cir. 2001) (plaintiff is free to amend once as a matter of course

prior to the entry of judgment on a pending motion to dismiss) . As a result of the Amended

Complaint, the Motions to Dismiss directed at the original Complaint are rendered moot. Thus, I

recommend that the Motions (Documents No . 23 and 24) be DENIED, without prejudice .

Any objection to this Report and Recommendation must be specific and must be filed with

the Clerk of the Court within ten (10) days of its receipt . See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) ; LR Cv 72.

Failure to file specific objections in a timely manner constitutes waiver of the right to review by the

District Court and the right to appeal the District Court's decision. See United States v . ValenciaCase 1:06-cv-00182-SM Document 33 Filed 09/18/06 Page 1 of 2
Copete,_792 F .2d 4, 6 (1" Cir. 1986); Park Motor Mart, Inc . v. Ford Motor Co. , 616 F.2d 603, 605

(ls` Cir. 1980) .

Isl Lincoln D. Almond

LINCOLN D. ALMOND

United States Magistrate Judge

September 15, 2006

Case 1:06-cv-00182-SM Document 33 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Charles E. Glenn

v. Civil No. 06-cv-99-JD

Hillsborough County Department

of Corrections, et al.

O R D E R

Charles Glenn, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis,

brought a civil rights case against the Hillsborough County

Department of Corrections and individual officers at the jail. 

Following preliminary review of the complaint, on October 3,

2006, the magistrate judge ordered service to be made on the

defendants, including Captain Dempsey, who was an officer at

HCDOC while Glenn was detained there, along with other

defendants. The summons was addressed to Dempsey at Hillsborough

County Department of Corrections, 445 Willow Street, Manchester. 

The process receipt and return filed by the Marshals Service

on November 3, 2006, as unexecuted. On November 9, 2006, the

magistrate ordered Glenn to provide a current address for Dempsey

to permit service to be made. Glenn has been represented by

counsel since January 11, 2007. No return of service was ever

filed for Dempsey, and he did not respond to the complaint.

Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m), a plaintiff has

Case 1:06-cv-00099-JD Document 63 Filed 05/29/08 Page 1 of 2
2

120 days after the complaint is filed to serve the defendants. 

When a plaintiff fails to make service within the time allowed,

the court must dismiss the action against the unserved defendant

after notice to the plaintiff, unless the plaintiff shows good

cause for the failure to serve. Id. 

THEREFORE, this order serves as notice to Glenn that his

claims against Dempsey will be dismissed without prejudice unless

he shows good cause for his failure to make service on Captain

Dempsey on or before June 4, 2008. 

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

May 29, 2008

cc: Heidi A. Bean, Esquire

John A. Curran, Esquire

Harold J. Friedman, Esquire

Elizabeth L. Hurley, Esquire

Michael J. Sheehan, Esquire

Case 1:06-cv-00099-JD Document 63 Filed 05/29/08 Page 2 of 2