alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 188 (Friday, September 26, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 55775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22721]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 101

[WT Docket No. 00-19; RM-9418; FCC 02-218]


Streamline Processing of Microwave Applications in the Wireless 
Telecommunications Services

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

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

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission 
corrects an inadvertent error that occurred when the Commission adopted 
final rules pertaining to Streamline Processing of Microwave 
Applications in the Wireless Telecommunications Services and 
Telecommunications Industry Association Petition for Rulemaking. These 
rules were published in the Federal Register on Friday, January 31, 
2003 (68 FR 4953). Specifically, the error occurred in a table to the 
rules concerning directional antennas and compliance with antenna 
standards. As a result of this correction, the table will be amended as 
intended by the Commission.

DATES: Effective September 26, 2008.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Schauble at 202-418-0797.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a correction to a summary of the 
Commission's Report and Order in WT Docket No. 00-19, FCC 02-218, 
adopted on July 18, 2002 and released on July 31, 2002. The Report and 
Order streamlined, clarified and updated part 101 rules. These actions 
were to provide increased flexibility to licensees, ensure greater and 
more efficient use of spectrum bands regulated under part 101, and 
ensure that our Rules are consistent with international agreements.

Need for Correction

    As published, the final rules contain an error in Sec.  101.115 
Directional Antennas, Antenna Standards Table. The Commission did not 
request that the listed entry to the Antenna Standards Table for the 
frequency of 10,550 to 10,680 <SUP>5,7</SUP> MHz be omitted. This 
correction removes the listing that should have been omitted. The entry 
for 10,550 to 10,680<SUP>7</SUP>, which was adopted in that proceeding, 
will remain.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 101

    Communications equipment, Marine safety, Radio, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

0
Accordingly, 47 CFR part 101 is amended by making the following 
correcting amendments:

PART 101--FIXED MICROWAVE SERVICES

0
1. The authority citation for part 101 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 47 U.S.C. 154, 303 unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  101.115  [Amended]

0
2. Section 101.115 is amended by removing the entry ``10,550 to 10,680 
\5,7\'' for both Category A and B in the table following paragraph 
(b)(2).

Federal Communications Commission.
Marlene H. Dortch,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E8-22721 Filed 9-25-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
B.3. Net Charge-offs of Non-real-estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
                                Estimated volume                 Share of total non-real-estate farm loans
                              (millions of dollars)                              (percent)
                      _____________________________________     ____________________________________________

Year                  Total     Q1      Q2      Q3      Q4      Total      Q1        Q2        Q3       Q4
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
                                                                                                            
1997......    |          93       6      19      19      50      .230      .014      .049     .045      .112
1998......    |          87       4      15      24      45      .198      .008      .036     .051      .095
1999......    |         126      18      37      35      36      .280      .040      .086     .078      .080
2000......    |         108      11      17      34      45      .259      .027      .041     .075      .098
2001......    |         308      67      53     140      48      .656      .142      .118     .294      .101
2002......    |         221      40      50      58      73      .471      .085      .114     .124      .157
2003......    |         175      34      35      48      58      .382      .074      .080     .108      .128
2004......    |         129      28      17      46      38      .284      .062      .039     .099      .081
2005......    |          59       8      16      12      24      .124      .017      .035     .026      .048
2006......    |          73       9       7      23      34      .146      .018      .015     .045      .064
2007......    |          90       8      13      23      47      .170      .014      .025     .042      .085
2008......    |         150      12      20      42      75      .269      .022      .037     .074      .129
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
   Note. Components might not sum to totals because of rounding. Reported amounts are adjusted to exclude
foreign results for large banks that report farm net charge-offs on a consolidated basis and for small banks
that are allowed to report net charge-offs according to their internal definition of agricultural loans.
Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.
   n.a. Not available.

23
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Donald W. Morgan, certify that:

         1.       I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q of Larscom
Incorporated;

         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 have:

                  a)       Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or
caused such disclosure controls 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;

                  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 that has materially affected, or is
reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over
financial reporting.

         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 function):

                  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 13, 2004

By: /s/ Donald W. Morgan
    ------------------------------------
    Chief Financial Officer
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

John E.Eldredee

V . Northern NH Correctional Facility, Warden

Civil No . 08-cv-41-JD

ORDE R

I herewith approve the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge

Muirhead dated August 13, 2008, no objection having been filed.

SO ORDERED.

October 8, 2008 /s/ Joseph A. DiClerico. Jr.

Joseph A. DiClerico, Jr.

United States District Judge

cc : John E. Eldredge, pro se

Case 1:08-cv-00041-JD Document 9 Filed 10/08/08 Page 1 of 1
#### In the Matter of Vermont Department of Social Welfare, on Behalf of Lynn T., Respondent, v Louis T., Appellant.

[809 NYS2d 21]

Order, Family Court, New York County (Helen C. Sturm, J.), entered on or about September 2, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, denied respondent father’s request for termination or modification of a 1985 order of child support, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Respondent claims that his child support arrears should be reduced or annulled because petitioner (1) advised that his incarceration did not affect his obligation to pay, and (2) failed to notify him, and he was unaware, that he could petition the court to modify the order of support. This claim is unpreserved, and we decline to review it. Were we to do so, we would not agree that strict application of section 451 of the Family Court Act would result in a “grievous injustice” to respondent *(cf. Matter of Reynolds v Oster,*192 AD2d 794, 795 [1993], *appeal dismissed*81 NY2d 1068 [1993]). It does not avail him that petitioner, in not detailing all his rights, misled him into believing he had no recourse to seek a modification as he is not entitled to benefit from his ignorance of the law.

*516Respondent would not, in any event, have had a meritorious basis for modification of the order of support, as it is well established that there is no exception for arrears accrued during a period of incarceration *(Matter of Knights v Knights,*71 NY2d 865 [1988]; *Matter of Zaid S. v Yolanda N.A.A.,*24 AD3d 118 [2005]; *Matter of Onondaga County Dept. of Social Servs. v Timothy S.,*294 AD2d 27 [2002]).

Respondent fares no better in his argument that collection of arrears accruing more than six years prior to the initiation of this proceeding is barred by the statute of limitations, since this case does not involve an attempt to enforce a contractual obligation or collect accrued arrears *(see Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. of City of N.Y. v Gomez,*221 AD2d 39, 43 [1996]; *cf. Shavit v Shavit,*279 AD2d 180, 184 [2000], *lv denied*96 NY2d 719 [2001]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

United States of America

v. Case No. 08-cr-86-PB

Christopher Chase, Kenton Benloss

and Phatsany Lae Syharath

O R D E R

Defendant Kenton Benloss, through counsel, has moved to

continue the December 2, 2008 trial in the above case, citing the

need for additional time to complete extensive discovery and

consider pretrial negotiations. The government and co-defendants

do not object to a continuance of the trial.

Accordingly, for the above reasons and to allow the parties

additional time to properly prepare for trial, the court will

continue the trial from December 2, 2008 to March 3, 2009. 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 defendants in a speedy

trial. 

Case 1:08-cr-00086-PB Document 30 Filed 11/14/08 Page 1 of 2
2

The November 17, 2008 final pretrial conference is continued

to February 18, 2009 at 4:30 p.m.

SO ORDERED.

/s/Paul Barbadoro 

Paul Barbadoro

United States District Judge

November 14, 2008

cc: Jonathan Saxe, Esq.

Michael Ramsdell, Esq.

R. Brian Snow, Esq.

Mark Irish, AUSA

United States Probation

United States Marshal

Case 1:08-cr-00086-PB Document 30 Filed 11/14/08 Page 2 of 2
EXHIBIT 32.1

# CERTIFICATION
                       PURSUANT TO SECTION 13a-14(b) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
AND 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350

In connection with the Quarterly
Report of Media Sciences International, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for
the quarterly period ended December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date therein specified (the Report), the undersigned,
Michael W. Levin, as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, 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) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
          respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ Michael W. Levin 
Michael W. Levin
Chief Executive Officer
Date: February 9, 2006

A signed original of this written
statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
request.
#### Dawn FIGMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. SPRINT, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 02-2371.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted March 6, 2003.

Decided March 13, 2003.

Dawn Figman, Appellant Pro Se. Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia; Timothy J. Nieman, Rhoads & Simon, L.L.P., Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for Appellee.

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and KING, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

*999PER CURIAM.

Dawn Figman appeals the district court’s order denying her Motion for Relief of Judgment Order filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. *See Figman v. Sprint,*No. CA-01-3 (W.D.Va. Nov. 13, 2002). We deny Figman’s motion for leave to amend her informal brief and her motions for an extension of time. 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.*
Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 1 of 6

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 2 of 6

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 3 of 6

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 4 of 6

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 5 of 6

Case 1:08-cr-00161-SM   Document 18   Filed 04/02/09   Page 6 of 6
33

C.2. Expected Farm Loan Volume for the Next Quarter, Compared with a Year EarlierPercent

Purpose of loan

Total Feeder cattle Dairy Crop storage Operating 

Quarter Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Higher Lower Same Hig

Seventh (Chicago) Federal Reserve District (IL*, IN*, IA, MI*, WI*)

2005: Q3... 10 57 33 16 73 11 7 89 5 14 63 23 9 42 

 Q4... 10 51 39 17 65 17 12 83 5 17 67 16 7 39 2006: Q1... 8 55 37 21 72 7 12 81 7 17 63 19 7 39  Q2... 16 55 29 15 78 7 13 80 7 15 60 25 10 49  Q3... 12 58 30 17 71 11 15 77 9 11 60 28 8 45  Q4... 18 47 35 27 66 7 15 78 7 9 53 38 17 40 2007: Q1... 10 51 38 23 68 8 13 79 8 5 51 45 9 42  Q2... 10 59 30 23 71 6 12 79 8 8 48 44 11 55  Q3... 15 50 35 16 72 12 9 86 5 5 58 37 13 46 

Eleventh (Dallas) Federal Reserve District (LA*, NM*, TX)

2005: Q3... 12 67 21 17 68 15 12 81 1 7 83 5 8 70 

 Q4... 12 73 15 17 64 19 12 79 4 13 76 6 12 69 2006: Q1... 23 58 19 25 67 8 12 83 5 14 83 3 21 62  Q2... 25 61 14 35 61 4 11 82 2 13 77 5 20 58  Q3... 23 63 14 21 67 12 11 80 4 11 85 5 13 59  Q4... 14 66 20 26 63 11 10 80 5 10 85 6 11 66 2007: Q1... 13 64 24 18 72 10 12 77 5 12 81 7 7 65  Q2... 8 66 26 16 74 10 17 75 2 13 80 7 7 69  Q3... 10 72 18 15 75 10 11 80 3 8 75 18 7 69 

Fifth (Richmond) Federal Reserve District (MD, NC, SC, VA, WV*)

2005: Q3... 24 71 5 6 89 6 13 88 0 11 11 0 5 19 

 Q4... 28 61 11 14 71 14 20 80 0 13 75 13 26 58 2006: Q1... 21 63 16 19 69 13 19 81 0 22 72 6 23 68  Q2... 16 74 11 0 87 13 21 79 0 13 81 6 21 68  Q3... 47 53 0 29 64 7 31 69 0 31 69 0 42 58  Q4... 25 70 5 18 76 6 24 76 0 16 68 16 25 70 2007: Q1... 26 58 16 20 67 13 21 64 14 44 50 6 21 58  Q2... 12 88 0 6 94 0 13 88 0 11 78 11 11 84  Q3... 36 64 0 18 82 0 20 80 0 8 58 33 21 71  * State falls only partly within the indicated Reserve District. Source. Federal Reserve Bank quarterly surveys of agricultural credit conditions at commercial banks.
# Fourth Court of Appeals **San Antonio, Texas** MEMORANDUM OPINION
N o. 04

- 14

- 00120

- CV IN THE INTERES T OF R.A.G.C ., et al., Children From the 131st Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas Trial Court No. 2011

- CI

- 00860 Hon orable Martha B. Tanner, Judge Presiding
PER CURIAM Sitting: Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice Delivered and Filed: November 19, 2014
REVERSED AND REMANDED The parties have filed a joint motion asking this court to reverse the judgment of the trial court and to remand the case to the trial court for entry of an agreed judgment. The parties also request that we order the mandate issued immediately. The motio n is granted. As agreed by the parties, without consideration of the mer its, we reverse the trial court’ s judgment, and remand the case to the trial court for entry of a final judgment pursuant to the parties’ mediated settlement agreement. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 42.1(a)(2)(B), 43.2(d); Caballero v. Heart of Tex. Pizza , LLC , 70 S.W.3d 180, 181 (Tex. App.

— S an Antonio 2001, no pet.). Costs of the appeal are to be taxed against the appellant. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P . 42.1(d). The Clerk of this court is directed to issue the mandate immediately upon issuanc e of this opinion and judgment. See T EX
. R. A PP
. P. 18.1(c).
PER CURIAM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Carol A. Budro

v. Civil No. 07-cv-351-SM

BAE Systems, Inc.

ORDER OF RECUSAL

I hereby recuse myself from this case. 

SO ORDERED.

__________________________________

James R. Muirhead

United States Magistrate Judge

Date: December 19, 2007

cc: Carol A. Budro, pro se

 Charla B. Stevens, Esq.

Case 1:07-cv-00351-SM Document 7 Filed 12/19/07 Page 1 of 1
EXHIBIT 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE

WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.

EQUITY AND PERFORMANCE INCENTIVE PLAN

AS AMENDED AND RESTATED AS OF AUGUST 14, 2003


 


THIS AMENDMENT to the Washington Group
International, Inc. Equity and Performance Incentive Plan, Amended and Restated
effective August 14, 2003, is adopted by Washington Group International, Inc.
(the “Company”) effective as of February 13, 2004.


 


W I T N E S S E T H:


 


WHEREAS, the Company maintains the Washington
Group International, Inc. Equity and Performance Incentive Plan (the “Plan”),
and such Plan is currently in effect; and


 


WHEREAS, the Company wishes to amend the Plan
to prohibit the repricing of stock options without shareholder approval.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, the Company hereby amends the
Plan as follows:


 


1.


 


Paragraph 4(b)
of the Plan is hereby amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


(b)                                 Each
grant shall specify an Option Price per share, which shall be set by the Board;
provided, however, that such price shall be no less than the par value of a
share of Common Stock, and in the case of Incentive Stock Options, such price
shall be not less than the Market Value per share on the Date of the
Grant.  In addition, except as provided
in Section 11, no change shall be made to any Option Price after the Date of
Grant without shareholder approval.


 


2.


 


Paragraph 9(a)(ii) of the Plan is hereby
amended in its entirety to read as follows:


 


(ii)                                  Each
grant shall specify an Option Price per share, which shall be set by the Board;
provided, however, that such price shall be no less than the par value of a
share of Common Stock, and in the case of Incentive Stock Options, such price
shall not be less than the Market Value per Share on the Date of Grant.  In addition, except as provided in Section
11, no change shall be made to any Option Price after the Date of Grant without
shareholder approval.


 


Except as
amended herein, the Plan shall continue in full force and effect.


 

















 


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the undersigned has executed this Amendment effective as of the date
indicated above.


 


	
   

  	
  WASHINGTON GROUP INTERNATIONAL, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By:

  	
  /s/ Richard
  D. Parry

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Richard D. Parry

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Senior Vice President and General Counsel

  



 


Date:  
February 16, 2004
I

107TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION H. R. 1729

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater Study and Facilities

Act to increase the ceiling on the Federal share of the costs of phase

I of the Orange County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 3, 2001

Ms. SANCHEZ introduced the following bill; which was referred to the

Committee on Resources

A BILL

To amend the Reclamation Wastewater and Groundwater

Study and Facilities Act to increase the ceiling on the

Federal share of the costs of phase I of the Orange

County, California, Regional Water Reclamation Project.

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

3 SECTION 1. INCREASE IN CEILING ON FEDERAL SHARE OF

4 WATER RECLAMATION PROJECT.

5 Section 1631(d) of the Reclamation Wastewater and

6 Groundwater Study and Facilities Act (43 U.S.C. 390h–

7 13(d)) is amended—
2

•HR 1729 IH

1 (1) in paragraph (1) by striking ‘‘paragraph

2 (2)’’ and inserting ‘‘paragraphs (2) and (3)’’; and

3 (2) by adding at the end the following:

4 ‘‘(3) The Federal share of the costs of the project

5 authorized by section 1624 shall not exceed

6 $80,000,000.’’.

Æ
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIR E

United States of America

V .

Julia Tetreault

Criminal No . 09-cr-16-04-JD

O R D E R

The assented to motion to continue jury trial (document no .

38) filed by defendant is granted .

Defendant shall file a waiver of speedy trial rights within 10

days . 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), for the

reasons set forth in the motion .

SO ORDERED .

/s/ Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

Joseph A . DiClerico, Jr .

United States District Judge

Date : April 14, 200 9

cc : Mark Zuckerman, Esq .

Harry Batchelder, Jr ., Esq .

Richard Monteith, Jr ., Esq .

Jeffrey Levin, Esq .

Mark Howard, Esq .

U .S . Marshal

U .S . Probation

Case 1:09-cr-00016-JD Document 40 Filed 04/14/09 Page 1 of 1