alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### In the Matter of John Lynn, Appellant, v Town of Clarkstown, Defendant, and Town of Clarkstown Police Commission et al., Respondents.

[745 NYS2d 459]

In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78, inter alia, to (1) review a determination of the respondent Town of Clarkstown Police Commission, dated December 7, 2000, which, among other things, after a hearing, terminated the petitioner’s employment as a police officer pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71, and (2) compel the respondent Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown Police Department to place the petitioner on leave under General Municipal Law § 207-c retroactive to April 17, 1998, the petitioner appeals, as limited by his brief, from so much of an order and judgment (one paper) of the Supreme Court, Rock-land County (O’Rourke, J.), dated June 5, 2001, as granted those branches of the respondents’ motion pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5) and (7), and CPLR 7804 (f) which were to dismiss the petition insofar as asserted against the respondents Town of Clarkstown Police Commission and Chief of Police of the Clarkstown Police Department, and dismissed the petition as against those respondents.

Ordered that the order and judgment is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

The petitioner was lawfully terminated from his employment pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. In substance, he was accorded all of the regulatory and due process rights to which he was entitled *(see Matter of Hurwitz v Perales,*81 NY2d 182, *cert denied*510 US 992; *Matter of Prue v Hunt,*78 NY2d 364).

We agree with the Supreme Court that the petitioner’s letter to the Chief of Police of the Town of Clarkstown Police Department (hereinafter the Chief), dated January 29, 2001, requesting General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits was, at most, an application for reconsideration of an administrative determination which served neither to extend nor to toll the statute of limitations *(see Matter of Lubin v Board of Educ. of City of N.Y.,*60 NY2d 974, *cert denied*469 US 823; *Matter of De Milio v Borghard,*55 NY2d 216; *Matter of Gruosso v County of Nassau,*264 AD2d 396; *Matter of Mazzilli v New York City Fire Dept.,*224 AD2d 621). Accordingly, the petitioner’s challenge to the Chiefs March 17, 2000, denial of his request for General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits was untimely *(see*CPLR 217).

The petitioner’s remaining contentions are without merit. Florio, J.P., Friedmann, H. Miller and Crane, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32.1

CERTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the undersigned certifies that this periodic report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and that information contained in this periodic report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Golf Trust of America, Inc. for the periods covered by this periodic report.



|      |                  |  |                                                        
|----- | ---------------- |  | -------------------------------------------------------
|      |                  |  |                                                        
|Date: | November 3, 2009 |  | /s/ MICHAEL C. PEARCE                                  
|      |                  |  | Michael C. Pearce
Chief Executive Officer and President
|      |                  |  |                                                        
|      |                  |  |                                                        
|Date: | November 3, 2009 |  | /s/ TRACYS. CLIFFORD                                   
|      |                  |  | Tracy S. Clifford
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
## IN THE COU RT O F CR IM IN AL AP PE ALS OF TE XAS
N O . A P - 76, 025

EX PA R TE SH O N D R A I LL A N TO I N E M EL LIX , A ppl i c ant

ON AP P LI CAT I ON F OR A W RI T OF HABE AS CORP US CAUS E N O. 9 7 0 3 3 9 I N T HE 2 0 8 t h DI S TR I CT COURT

FROM HA RRI S CO UNTY

P ercur i am . O P I N I O N Pursuant to the provisions of Article 11.07 of the Texas Code of Crim i n al P ro ce dure, the cler k of the trial court transmitted to this Court this application for writ of habe as cor

pus. Ex pa rte Y oung , 418 S.W
. 2 d 8 2 4 , 8 26 (Tex. Crim. App. 1967). Applicant wa s convicted of murder and
sen tenc e d to thi rt

y -f ive ye ars ’ i mpriso nme nt. Th e F ourt e e nth Court of Ap pe a ls a ff

ir me d his conviction. Me lli

xv . S tate , No . 1 4- 06 -0 10 97 -C R ( Te x. Ap p. –H ou sto n [14 Di st. ], de liv e re d Augus t th 7, 2007, no pet.). Applicant conte nds that his appellate counsel re ndere d ineff e c ti v ea s s is ta

n c eb e c a u s ecounsel failed to timely

notify Applicant that his conviction had be en af firmed

.2

Appellate c ounsel filed an a ffidavit with the trial court. Ba sed on that af fidavit, the trial cour

t has enter ed finding s of fac t a nd conclusions of law that appellate counsel failed t o t i m el y n o t ify Applicant that his conviction had been aff irmed. The trial court re commends that re lief be grante d. Ex parte W

ilson , 9 56 S.W. 2d

25 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 97 ). We f ind , th e re fo re , th at App lic ant i s entitled to the opportunity to file an out-of

-time petition for discre tionary revie w of the judgment of the F ourt e e nth

Court of Ap pe a ls i n Ca

us e No
. 14 -0 6- 01 09 7- CR

tha t a ff ir me d his c onvic tio n in

Ca se No. 970339 from the 208th J udicial District Court of Har ris County . Applicant shall file his petition for discr etionary

revie w with the Four

teenthCourt of Appeals within 30 day s of the date on which thi s Co ur t’ s ma nd ate iss ue s.

Deliver ed: Octobe r 29, 2008 Do no t pu bli sh
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

 Plaintiff - Appellee,

 v.

JORGE AYALA-CORNEJO, a.k.a. Jorge

Ayala,

 Defendant - Appellant.

No. 12-50098

D.C. No. 2:11-cr-00842-PSG

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Philip S. Gutierrez, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted March 12, 2013** 

Before: PREGERSON, REINHARDT, and W. FLETCHER, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Ayala-Cornejo appeals from the district court’s judgment and

challenges his guilty-plea conviction and 51-month sentence for being an illegal

alien found in the United States following deportation, in violation of 8 U.S.C. 

FILED

MAR 22 2013

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 12-50098

§ 1326. Pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), Ayala-Cornejo’s

counsel has filed a brief stating that there are no grounds for relief, along with a

motion to withdraw as counsel of record. Ayala-Cornejo has filed a pro se

supplemental brief, and the government has filed an answering brief. 

Ayala-Cornejo waived his right to appeal his conviction, with the exception

of an appeal based on a claim that his plea was involuntary. He also waived the

right to appeal his sentence, with the exception of the court’s calculation of his

criminal history category. Our independent review of the record pursuant to

Penson v. Ohio, 488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), discloses no arguable grounds for relief as

to Ayala-Cornejo’s plea or his criminal history category. We therefore affirm as to

those issues. We dismiss the remainder of the appeal in light of the valid appeal

waivers. See United States v. Watson, 582 F.3d 974, 988 (9th Cir. 2009). 

Counsel’s motion to withdraw is GRANTED.

AFFIRMED in part; DISMISSED in part.
B.4. Delinquent Real Estate Farm Loans Held by Insured Commercial Banks

Share of outstanding farm real estate

Volume (billions of dollars) loans (percent)

Nonperforming Nonperforming 

Past due Past due

30 to 89 Past due 30 to 89 Past due

days, 90 days, Non- days, 90 days, NonPeriod Total accruing Total accruing accruing Total accuring Total accruing accruing

1996...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.8 1.1 1.7 .7 1.0

1997...... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.6 1.1 1.5 .6 .9

1998...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999...... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000...... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001...... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002...... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003...... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004...... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005...... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006...... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

1998: Q3... .7 .3 .4 .2 .2 2.5 .9 1.6 .7 .9

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.9 1.2 1.7 .8 1.0

1999: Q1... 1.1 .5 .6 .3 .3 3.6 1.6 2.0 .9 1.0

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .8 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .8 1.5 .7 .8

 Q4... .6 .2 .4 .2 .2 2.0 .8 1.3 .5 .7

2000: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .3 .3 3.2 1.3 1.9 .9 1.0

 Q2... .9 .3 .6 .3 .3 2.7 1.0 1.7 .7 1.0

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .2 .3 2.1 .7 1.4 .6 .8

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .2 .3 2.3 .9 1.4 .6 .8

2001: Q1... 1.1 .6 .5 .1 .4 3.2 1.7 1.4 .4 1.1

 Q2... .9 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.7 1.0 1.7 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .4 2.5 .9 1.7 .4 1.3

 Q4... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.6 1.1 1.5 .3 1.2

2002: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .2 .4 3.3 1.6 1.7 .5 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .6 .2 .4 2.6 1.0 1.6 .4 1.1

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.4 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q4... .9 .4 .6 .1 .5 2.5 1.0 1.5 .3 1.2

2003: Q1... 1.2 .6 .6 .1 .5 3.2 1.6 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q2... 1.0 .4 .7 .2 .5 2.6 .9 1.6 .4 1.2

 Q3... .9 .3 .6 .1 .5 2.3 .7 1.5 .3 1.2

 Q4... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 2.1 .7 1.3 .2 1.1

2004: Q1... 1.0 .4 .6 .1 .4 2.5 1.1 1.4 .3 1.1

 Q2... .8 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.9 .7 1.2 .3 .9

 Q3... .7 .2 .5 .1 .4 1.7 .6 1.1 .2 .9

 Q4... .7 .3 .4 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

2005: Q1... .9 .4 .5 .1 .4 2.0 1.0 1.0 .2 .8

 Q2... .7 .3 .5 .1 .4 1.6 .6 1.0 .2 .8

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .5 .9 .2 .7

 Q4... .6 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .6

2006: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.8 .9 .9 .2 .6

 Q2... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.4 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .8 .2 .6

 Q4... .7 .3 .3 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .1 .5

2007: Q1... .9 .5 .4 .1 .3 1.6 .9 .7 .2 .5

 Q2... .8 .4 .4 .1 .3 1.5 .7 .8 .2 .6

 Q3... .7 .3 .4 .1 .3 1.3 .6 .7 .2 .5

 Note. Yearly data are as of December 31. Quarterly data are as of end of quarter.

24
Exhibit 32.1



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



In connection with the Quarterly Report of US Unwired Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2005 (the Report), I, Robert W. Piper, President and Chief Executive 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:



(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/ Robert W. Piper                                                
|Robert W. Piper President and Chief Executive
Officer July 25, 2005
23

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

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

2009...... n.a. 65 59 151 n.a. n.a. .111 .108 .265 n.a.

 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.
#### Gail Hausmann, Respondent, v UMK, Inc., et al., Respondents, and 5582 Broadway Realty Co., Inc., Appellant.

[744 NYS2d 404]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Kenneth Thompson, Jr., J.), entered on or about October 17, 2001, which denied defendant 5582 Broadway Realty Co.’s (5582 Broadway) motion for summary judgment, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs, the motion granted, and the action against this defendant dismissed. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of defendant-appellant, dismissing the complaint as against it.

Appellant 5582 Broadway is the owner of a commercial premises in the Bronx where plaintiff alleges she fell on a welcome mat outside the building. The mat is owned and has consistently been maintained by two lessees who operate a store in the building, Patgo Stationery (Patgo) and UMK, Inc. (UMK).

Defendant 5582 Broadway is an out-of-possession landlord with a general right of reentry pursuant to a provision in the lease, and thus cannot be held liable for general maintenance defects, but only for structural failures or specific statutory violations *(Raynor v 666 Fifth Ave. Ltd. Partnership,*232 AD2d 226). This out-of-possession landlord has not accepted responsibility, either pursuant to paragraph 58 of the rider, or paragraph 4 of its lease with the tenants, for the condition of the welcome mat and rug runner. These two items are owned, maintained and within the exclusive control of its lessees *(Raynor, supra*[tenant in possession has sole control over hole in carpet that lay within demised premises and was usually covered by an employee-placed runner]; *Aprea v Carol Mgt. Corp.,*190 AD2d 838 [same]).

Further, there is no evidence that 5582 Broadway either habitually, or even occasionally, reentered the property to assume any control over building maintenance, such as to impute liability for its1 lessees’ inadequately secured rug *(compare, Dimas v 160 Water St. Assoc.,*191 AD2d 290). Concur — Tom, J.P., Mazzarelli, Andidas, Ellerin and Rubin, JJ.
**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**

 

Inconnection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of WorldHeart Corporation(the “Company”) for the quarter ended June 30, 2005 as filed with theSecurities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), theundersigned, Jal S. Jassawalla, President and Chief Executive Officer of theCompany, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; as amended and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results ofoperations of the Company as of June 30, 2005.
| Dated:  August 9, 2005 | /s/ *                                   |
|------------------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                   | Jal  S. Jassawalla, President and Chief |
|                   | Executive  Officer                      |
|                   | (Principal  Executive Officer)          |

**__________________**

*******                **A signed original of this written statement requiredby section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by theCompany and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

----
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 7 (Thursday, January 10, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 1875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-233]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL08-25-000]


City of Anaheim, CA; Notice of Filing

December 31, 2007.
    Take notice that on December 21, 2007, the City of Anaheim, 
California filed its fifth annual revision to its Transmission Revenue 
Balancing Account Adjustment, to become effective January 1, 2008.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1a5c5f485955747673747f496f6a6a75686e5a7c7f6879347d756c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="98deddcadbd7f6f4f1f6fdcbede8e8f7eaecd8fefdeafbb6fff7ee">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m., Eastern Time on January 22, 2008.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E8-233 Filed 1-9-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Rodney Suggs, Also Known as William Smith, Appellant.

[745 NYS2d 706]

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Tomei, J.), rendered April 17, 2000, convicting him of assault in the first degree, unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree, criminal contempt in the second degree, and criminal possession of stolen property in the fifth degree, upon a jury verdict, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is modified, on the law, by vacating the defendant’s conviction of assault in the first degree, vacating the sentence imposed thereon, and dismissing that count of the indictment; as so modified, the judgment is affirmed, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for a new trial on counts 10, 11, and 12 of the indictment.

We agree with the defendant that the evidence was legally insufficient to support his conviction of assault in the first degree (felony assault) *(see*Penal Law § 120.10 [4]). The People failed to establish that the assault was committed in furtherance of the underlying felony of unauthorized use of a vehicle in the second degree *(see People v Williams,*255 AD2d 610, 611). Since the defendant was acquitted of all of the other predicate felonies with which he was charged, and the jury was not instructed that it could convict him of felony assault based upon the attempted commission of one of the predicate felonies, his conviction of assault in the first degree must be reversed and that count of the indictment dismissed *(cf. People v Ladson,*209 AD2d 640; *People v Butler,*187 AD2d 439; *People v Gary,*162 AD2d 277; *People v Littlejohn,*83 AD2d 856, 857).

Because the jury did not reach a verdict on the counts of the indictment charging the defendant with assault in the second degree *(see*Penal Law §§ 120.05 [1], [2]) and assault in the *560third degree *(see*Penal Law § 120.00 [1]), a new trial is required on those counts *(see People v Charles,*78 NY2d 1044, 1047; *People v Nelson,*292 AD2d 397; *People v Hubbert,*212 AD2d 633, 634-635). The jury was instructed not to consider the counts charging the defendant with assault in the second degree and assault in the third degree if it found him guilty of assault in the first degree. Since those counts were submitted to the jury *(cf.*CPL 300.40 [7]) but not considered, retrial of those counts will not violate double jeopardy principles *(see People v Charles,*supra;*People v Jackson,*20 NY2d 440, 446-453, *cert denied*391 US 928; *People v Sanchez,*276 AD2d 723, 724; *People v Galisia,*276 AD2d 712, 713; *People v Gonzalez,*221 AD2d 203, 207). Accordingly, a new trial is ordered on counts 10, 11, and 12 of the indictment, charging the defendant with the crimes of assault in the second degree (two counts) and assault in the third degree.

The defendant’s remaining contention is without merit. Smith, J.P., Goldstein, McGinity and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 191 (Wednesday, October 1, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Page 57149]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-22924]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

National Park Service


Flight 93 National Memorial Advisory Commission

AGENCY: National Park Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of November 1, 2008 Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: This notice sets forth the date of the November 1, 2008 
meeting of the Flight 93 Advisory Commission.

DATES: The public meeting of the Advisory Commission will be held on 
Saturday, November 1, 2008 from 10 a.m. to 1 p.m. (Eastern). The 
Commission will meet jointly with the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force.
    Location: The meeting will be held at the Somerset County 
Courthouse, Court Room <greek-i>1, located at 111 E. Union Street, 
Somerset, PA 15501.
    Agenda:
    The November 1, 2008 joint Commission and Task Force meeting will 
consist of
    1. Opening of Meeting and Pledge of Allegiance.
    2. Review and Approval of Commission Minutes from August 2, 2008.
    3. Reports from the Flight 93 Memorial Task Force and National Park 
Service. Comments from the public will be received after each report 
and/or at the end of the meeting.
    4. Old Business.
    5. New Business.
    6. Public Comments.
    7. Closing Remarks.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joanne M. Hanley, Superintendent, 
Flight 93 National Memorial, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501, 
814.443.4557.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting will be open to the public. Any 
member of the public may file with the Commission a written statement 
concerning agenda items. Address all statements to: Flight 93 Advisory 
Commission, 109 West Main Street, Somerset, PA 15501.

    Dated: September 8, 2008.
Joanne M. Hanley,
Superintendent, Flight 93 National Memorial.
[FR Doc. E8-22924 Filed 9-30-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4312-25-P