alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 186 (Wednesday, September 24, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 55075-55076]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22459]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8720-1]


Gulf of Mexico Program Policy Review Board Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA).

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (Pub. L. 92-463), EPA 
gives notice of a meeting of the Gulf of Mexico Program (GMP) Policy 
Review Board (PRB). For information on access or services for 
individuals with disabilities, please contact Gloria Car, U.S. EPA, at 
(228) 688-2421 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#335052411d545f5c415a52735643521d545c45"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f3909281dd949f9c819a92b3968392dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>. To request accommodation of a 
disability, please contact Gloria Car, preferably at least 10 days 
prior to the meeting, to give EPA as much time as possible to process 
your request.

DATES: The meeting will be held on Tuesday, October 28, 2008, from 1:30 
p.m. to 5 p.m. and on Wednesday, October 29, 2008, from 8:30 a.m. to 12 
p.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Hilton New Orleans 
Riverside, 2 Poydras Street, New Orleans, LA 70140, (504) 561-0500.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria D. Car, Designated Federal 
Officer, Gulf of Mexico Program Office, Mail Code EPA/GMPO, Stennis 
Space Center, MS 39529-6000 at (228) 688-2421.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed agenda topics include: Gulf of 
Mexico Alliance Implementation Status and Governors' Action Plan 
Release #2 Updates; Louisiana Leadership Briefing; Binational 
Initiative Updates; SPARROW MODEL--Evolving Partnership Support Tools; 
Coastal America Partnership--Designation of Audubon Aquarium of the 
Americas;

[[Page 55076]]

Gulf Program FY 08 Accomplishments and FY 09 Workplan; 2008 Gulf 
Guardian Program; Gulf Business Coalition Report.
    The meeting is open to the public.

    Dated: September 17, 2008.
Gloria D. Car,
Designated Federal Officer.
[FR Doc. E8-22459 Filed 9-23-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**Exhibit32.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

In connection with theQuarterly Report of Covance Inc. (“Covance”) on Form 10-Q for the period endedSeptember 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Joseph L. Herring, Chairman of the Board andChief Executive Officer of Covance, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

(1)          The Reportfully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)          Theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operations of Covance.

Date: November 2, 2006
|        | /s/    | Joseph L. Herring             |
|--------|--------|-------------------------------|
|   |   | Joseph L. Herring             |
|   |   | Chairman of the Board and     |
|   |   | Chief Executive Officer       |
|   |   | (Principal Executive Officer) |

 

----
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Alma M. Anderson

v.

U.S. Social Security Administration,

Commissioner

No. 07-fp-099

ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO

PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS

Plaintiff’s request to proceed in forma pauperis is hereby

granted, but only for the purpose of waiving the filing fee.

This case has been assigned civil number 07-cv-099-PB.

SO ORDERED.

Date: April 5, 2007

. Muirhead

States Magistrate Judge

cc: Michael C. Shklar, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00099-PB Document 3 Filed 04/05/07 Page 1 of 1
```

[Congressional Bills 107th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 1555 Introduced in House (IH)]

107th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 1555

 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
        for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 24, 2001

  Mr. Foley (for himself, Mr. Tanner, and Mr. McCrery) introduced the 
 following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to increase the deduction 
        for meal and entertainment expenses of small businesses.

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

SECTION 1. SMALL BUSINESSES ALLOWED INCREASED DEDUCTION FOR MEAL AND 
              ENTERTAINMENT EXPENSES.

    (a) In General.--Subsection (n) of section 274 of the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to only 50 percent of meal and 
entertainment expenses allowed as deduction) is amended by adding at 
the end the following new paragraph:
            ``(4) Special rule for small businesses.--
                    ``(A) In general.--In the case of any taxpayer 
                which is a small business, paragraph (1) shall be 
                applied by substituting `the applicable percentage (as 
                defined in paragraph (3)(B))' for `50 percent'.
                    ``(B) Small business.--For purposes of this 
                paragraph, the term `small business' means, with 
                respect to expenses paid or incurred during any taxable 
                year--
                            ``(i) any C corporation which meets the 
                        requirements of section 55(e)(1) for such year, 
                        and
                            ``(ii) any S corporation, partnership, or 
                        sole proprietorship which would meet such 
                        requirements if it were a C corporation.''
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2001.
                                 <all>
```
25

B.5. Net Charge-offs of Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Estimated volume Share of outstanding real estate farm loans

(millions of dollars) (percent)

Year Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Total Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

1991...... 47 1 5 29 12 .268 .004 .027 .157 .067

1992...... 44 7 11 16 10 .232 .038 .058 .079 .049

1993...... 24 2 4 7 11 .121 .010 .018 .035 .054

1994...... 10 1 1 3 6 .048 .003 .003 .013 .026

1995...... 12 0 3 6 4 .055 -.001 .011 .027 .016

1996...... 7 0 1 2 4 .031 .000 .003 .009 .017

1997...... 16 -1 0 3 14 .064 -.003 -.001 .010 .054

1998...... 6 -1 3 0 5 .022 -.004 .009 .000 .016

1999...... 15 0 3 5 7 .051 -.001 .011 .015 .022

2000...... 12 -12 3 8 14 .037 -.037 .009 .022 .040

2001...... 42 10 9 5 17 .123 .030 .027 .014 .049

2002...... 35 8 6 5 16 .097 .022 .017 .014 .041

 Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

 n.a. Not available.
<XBRL>
<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>

<!--XBRL Document Created with Wdesk from Workiva-->
<!--Copyright 2023 Workiva-->
<!--r:6f5d420f-a8ee-4b8a-a094-db5c4d5d1277,g:e487a738-65ca-4bbf-9c39-2dbb9bf0ab76-->
<xs:schema xmlns:xs="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema" xmlns:link="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" xmlns:cinf="http://www.cinfin.com/20230306" attributeFormDefault="unqualified" elementFormDefault="qualified" targetNamespace="http://www.cinfin.com/20230306">
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xlink-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/instance" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-instance-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/linkbase" schemaLocation="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/xbrl-linkbase-2003-12-31.xsd"/>
  <xs:import namespace="http://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021" schemaLocation="https://xbrl.sec.gov/dei/2021/dei-2021.xsd"/>
  <xs:annotation>
    <xs:appinfo>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230306_lab.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/labelLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:linkbaseRef xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xlink:arcrole="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink/properties/linkbase" xlink:href="cinf-20230306_pre.xml" xlink:role="http://www.xbrl.org/2003/role/presentationLinkbaseRef" xlink:type="simple"/>
      <link:roleType id="CoverPageCoverPage" roleURI="http://www.cinfin.com/role/CoverPageCoverPage">
        <link:definition>0000001 - Document - Cover Page Cover Page</link:definition>
        <link:usedOn>link:presentationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:calculationLink</link:usedOn>
        <link:usedOn>link:definitionLink</link:usedOn>
      </link:roleType>
    </xs:appinfo>
  </xs:annotation>
</xs:schema>
</XBRL>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 06-cr-64-01-SM

Dennis B. Hammons

O R D E R

Defendant Hammons’ motion to continue the final pretrial conference and

trial is granted (document 13). Trial has been rescheduled for the January 2007

trial period. Defendant Hammons shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights not

later than November 13, 2006. On the filing of such waiver, his continuance

shall be effective. 

The Court finds that the ends of justice served by granting a continuance

outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant in a speedy trial, 18

U.S.C. § 3161(h)(8)(B)(iv), in that failure to grant a continuance would

unreasonably deny defendant the reasonable time necessary for effective

preparation taking into account the exercise of due diligence under the

circumstances. 

Final Pretrial Conference: January 4, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.

Jury Selection: January 9, 2007 at 9:30 a.m.

Case 1:06-cr-00064-SM Document 14 Filed 11/02/06 Page 1 of 2
2

SO ORDERED.

____________________________

Steven J. McAuliffe

 Chief Judge

November 2, 2006

cc: David W. Ruoff, Esq.

David Vicinanzo, Esq. 

Alfred Rubega, AUSA

US Probation

US Marshal

Case 1:06-cr-00064-SM Document 14 Filed 11/02/06 Page 2 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 07-cr-17-PB

Yvonne Thrasher

O R D E R

The defendant, through counsel, has moved to continue the

June 5, 2007 trial in the above case, citing the need for

additional time to engage in plea negotiations or prepare for

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

trial date.

Accordingly, for the above reason and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from June 5, 2007 to July 10, 2007. 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 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 20 Filed 05/21/07 Page 1 of 2
2

The May 22, 2007 final pretrial conference is continued to 

June 28, 2007 at 3:45 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

May 21, 2007

cc: Michael R. Smith, Esq.

Robert Viega, Esq.

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:07-cr-00017-PB Document 20 Filed 05/21/07 Page 2 of 2
Case 1:05-cr-00037-SM Document 26 Filed 08/08/05 Page 1 of 2
Case 1:05-cr-00037-SM Document 26 Filed 08/08/05 Page 2 of 2
H. R. 1366

One Hundred Seventh Congress

of the

United States of America

AT THE SECOND SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Wednesday,

the twenty-third day of January, two thousand and two

An Act

To designate the United States Post Office building located at 3101 West Sunflower

Avenue in Santa Ana, California, as the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building’’.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of

the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

The United States Post Office building located at 3101 West

Sunflower Avenue in Santa Ana, California, shall be known and

designated as the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building’’.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

Any reference in a law, regulation, map, document, paper,

or other record of the United States to the United States Post

Office building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be

a reference to the ‘‘Hector G. Godinez Post Office Building’’.

Speaker of the House of Representatives.

Vice President of the United States and

President of the Senate.
#### In the Matter of Brian H. Administration for Children's Services, Respondent; Jose V., Appellant, et al., Respondents.

[807 NYS2d 568]

In two related child protective proceedings pursuant to Family Court Act article 10, Jose V appeals from an order of the Family Court, Kings County (Hamill, J.), dated August 31, 2004, which denied his motion to vacate an order of disposition of the same court dated January 13, 2004, entered upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing, inter alia, placing Jose V under the supervision of the Administration of Children’s Services for a period of 12 months, awarding him only bi-weekly supervised visitation, and placing the child in the custody of the Commissioner of Social Services of Kings County, for a period of one year effective December 11, 2003.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The Family Court properly denied the appellant’s motion to vacate the order of disposition dated January 13, 2004, entered upon his default in appearing at the dispositional hearing. Under the circumstances of this case, the Family Court correctly concluded that the appellant “willfully refused to appear at the hearing” (Family Ct Act § 1042; *see Matter of Clifford J.,*238 AD2d 244 [1997]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Cozier, J.P., Santucci, Spolzino and Skelos, JJ., concur.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 22
- 0665 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. SCOTT ALAN LEHRKAMP,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 5 , 202 4 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 30 2023

10/30/2023

Case Number: DA 22-0665
Exhibit 31.2



CERTIFICATION



I, Michael Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer of Autobytel Inc., certify that:



1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q/A of Autobytel Inc.;



2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material
fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report;



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



4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined
in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:



a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;



b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the
registrants disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and



c) Disclosed in this report any change in the
registrants internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting; and



5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and



b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting.



Date: May 31, 2005



|                                                                      
|----------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/    MICHAEL SCHMIDT                                                
|Michael Schmidt, Chief Financial Officer (Principal Financial Officer)
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6749

THOMAS JOSEPH ISBELL,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of North Carolina, at Statesville. Richard L. 

Voorhees, District Judge. (5:06-cr-00022-RLV-18; 5:12-cv-00042-

RLV)

Submitted: January 14, 2016 Decided: January 19, 2016

Before AGEE, WYNN, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Thomas Joseph Isbell, Appellant Pro Se. Amy Elizabeth Ray, 

Assistant United States Attorney, Asheville, North Carolina, for 

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Thomas Joseph Isbell seeks to appeal the district court’s 

orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and 

denying his Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the 

judgment. The orders are not appealable unless a circuit 

justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 

U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B) (2012). A certificate of appealability 

will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that

Isbell has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny 

Isbell’s motion for a certificate of appealability and dismiss 

the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts 

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 
3

before this court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>   1



Exhibit 12

Prime Succession, Inc. and subsidiaries
Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
(Dollars in Thousands)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                   Three Months Ended            Nine Months Ended
                                                      September 30,                  September 30,
                                               ----------------------------- ----------------------------
                                                 1999              1998              1999              1998
                                                 ----              ----              ----              ----
<S>                                            <C>               <C>               <C>               <C>
Ratio of Earnings to
   Fixed Charges


Earnings:
   Loss before income taxes                    (4,079)           (2,201)           (6,301)           (3,389)
   Add:  Fixed charges, net                     6,616             6,240            18,966            18,918

Income before income taxes and fixed
charges, net                                    2,537             4,039            12,665            15,529

Fixed Charges:
   Total interest expense (1)                   6,351             6,006            18,206            18,189
   Interest factor in rents (2)                   265               234               760               729

          Total fixed charges                   6,616             6,240            18,966            18,918

Ratio of earnings to fixed charges               0.38              0.65              0.67              0.82

Coverage deficiency (3)                         4,079             2,201             6,301             3,389
</TABLE>


FN

(1)  Total interest expense for each period includes amortization of loan costs.

(2)  Interest factor in rents represents one-third of rent expense, which is
     considered representative of the interest factor.

(3)  The Company's earnings are inadequate to cover fixed charges for all
     periods indicated above. Coverage deficiency represents the excess of fixed
     charges over income before income taxes and fixed charges, net.