alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 194 (Thursday, October 7, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62136-62137]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-25360]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[L51010000.FX0000 LVRWB10B4040 LLCAC05000]


Notice Extending Scoping Period for the Notice of Intent To 
Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement for the Walker Ridge Wind 
Project, Lake and Colusa Counties, CA

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) announces the extension of 
the scoping period for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 
proposed Walker Ridge Wind Project, Lake and Colusa Counties, 
California. The BLM published a Notice of Intent to prepare the EIS in 
the Federal Register on August 13, 2010 [75 FR 49517], and in that 
notice provided for a scoping period to end on September 13, 2010. The 
BLM now extends the scoping period through October 13, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bethney Lefebvre, telephone (707) 468-
4000; address Ukiah Field Office, 2550 North State Street, Ukiah, 
California 95482; e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7d0816141c150a14131918140e3d1e1c531f1110531a120b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="85f0eeece4edf2ecebe1e0ecf6c5e6e4abe7e9e8abe2eaf3">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Notice of Intent provided for scoping 
comments on the Proposed Walker Ridge Wind Project to be received 
through September 13, 2010. The BLM is extending the scoping period to

[[Page 62137]]

accommodate comment submission after the planned September 9th and 
September 10th public scoping meetings, and to address the broad public 
interest in the Project. Scoping comments on the proposed Walker Ridge 
Wind Project will now be accepted through October 13, 2010.
    Before including your address, phone number, e-mail address, or 
other personal identifying information in your comment, you should be 
aware that your entire comment--including your personal identifying 
information--may be made publicly available at any time. While you can 
ask us in your comment to withhold your personal identifying 
information from public review, we cannot guarantee that we will be 
able to do so.

    Authority:  40 CFR 1501.7 and 43 CFR 1610.2.

Thomas Pogacnik,
Deputy State Director, Natural Resources.
[FR Doc. 2010-25360 Filed 10-6-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


         In connection with the Quarterly Report of Northfield Laboratories Inc.
on Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Jack J. Kogut,
Chief Financial Officer of Northfield Laboratories Inc., 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 Northfield Laboratories Inc.


Date: October 15, 2002


/s/ JACK J. KOGUT
-----------------
Jack J. Kogut
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 13.2

 

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906

OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

 

In connection with the Annual Report of Cnova N.V. (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2015, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Stéphane Brunel, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to my knowledge: (i) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

|   |                          |
|--------|-------------------------------|
|   | /s/ Stéphane Brunel      |
|   | Stéphane Brunel          |
|   | Chief Financial Officer       |
|   | (Principal Financial Officer) |
|   | Date: July 21, 2016           |

 

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.

 

----
#### A.D., A CHILD, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 5D09-4110.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

Sept. 17, 2010.

James S. Purdy, Public Defender, and Brynn Newton, Assistant Public Defender, Daytona Beach, for Appellant.

Bill McCollum, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Rebecca Rock McGuigan, Assistant Attorney General, Daytona Beach, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

A.D., a juvenile, appeals his disposition order which was entered by the trial court after A.D. was found guilty of violating the terms of his probation. A.D. contends that the trial court erred in directing him to pay the costs incurred in connection with his competency evaluations because he had been declared indigent by the court. The State essentially concedes error in this case, noting that the case of *W.Z. v. State,*35 So.3d 51 (Fla. 5th DCA 2010), in which this court held that such an assessment of costs was improper, was not decided until six months after the trial court entered its order in this case. The ruling in *W.Z.*is controlling and, accordingly, we strike the portion of the disposition order which directs A.D. to pay the costs for his competency evaluations.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

GRIFFIN, SAWAYA and PALMER, JJ., concur.
#### Barbara Marie HICKS, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee.

No. 72-1519.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted Jan. 12, 1973.

Decided Jan. 25, 1973.

Franklin Wilder, Fort Smith, Ark., on briefs for appellant.

Bethel B. Larey, U. S. Atty., and James A. Gutensohn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Fort Smith, Ark., on brief for appellee.

Before MATTHES, Chief Judge, BRIGHT, Circuit Judge, and TALBOT SMITH, Senior District Judge.*

*

 Eastern District of Michigan, sitting by designation.

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from a revocation of probation. In August of 1971 appellant, represented by counsel, pled guilty to theft of mail and forgery and uttering of a postal order. She was sentenced to three years but the term was suspended and she was placed on three years probation.

On August 7, 1972 motion to revoke probation was filed by her probation officer, alleging violations of probation, namely, having left the jurisdiction without first obtaining permission, and arrests for intoxication.

Hearing was had, at which appellant was represented by counsel. She freely admitted the charges made but presented matters in extenuation. The District Court, after hearing, revoked the probation theretofore granted and imposed a sentence of two years.

The appellant charges on appeal errors in the introduction of evidence and presents to us as well, matters in mitigation and extenuation. We find no errors as alleged. As we held in United States v. Crocker, 435 F.2d 601 (8th Cir. 1971), probation is a matter of legislative grace, and it may be revoked for failure to comply with conditions validly imposed by the court. The hearing upon revocation does not require a trial in a strict or formal sense, but only a fair hearing. Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 53 S.Ct. 154, 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932); Jianole v. United States, 58 *596F.2d 115 (8th Cir. 1932); Bennett v. United States, 158 F.2d 412 (8th Cir. 1947). The question before us is whether or not there has been an abuse of discretion. Kirsch v. United States, 173 F.2d 652 (8th Cir. 1949). We find none.

Affirmed.
No. 13,570.

#### Munn *v.*The Town of Garrett.

Filed March 28, 1889.

From the DeKalb Circuit Court.

*W. L. Penfield,*for appellant.

E. D. *Hartman*and *L. Covell,*for appellee.

Mitchell, J.

The questions in this case are the same as those decided in *Wagner*v. *Town of Garrett, ante,*p. 114. On the authority of that case the judgment is affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT21.1**

 

## **SUBSIDIARIESOF GEVITY HR, INC. as of DECEMBER 31, 2008**

 
| **Subsidiary**                                     | ** ** | **Jurisdiction of Formation** |
|----------------------------------------------------|------------|-----------------------------------------|
|                                               |       |                                    |
| 1.    Gevity  HR, L.P. *       |       | Delaware                                |
| 2.    Gevity  HR II, L.P. *    |       | Delaware                                |
| 3.    Gevity  HR III, L.P. *   |       | Delaware                                |
| 4.    Gevity  HR IV, L.P. *    |       | Delaware                                |
| 5.    Gevity  HR V, L.P. *     |       | Delaware                                |
| 6.    Gevity  HR VI, L.P. *    |       | Delaware                                |
| 7.    Gevity  HR VII, L.P. *   |       | Delaware                                |
| 8.    Gevity  HR VIII, L.P. *  |       | Delaware                                |
| 9.    Gevity  HR IX, L.P. *    |       | Delaware                                |
| 10.  Gevity  HR X, L.P. *                |       | Delaware                                |
| 11.  Gevity  HR XI, LLC *                |       | New  Mexico                             |
| 12.  Gevity  HR XII Corp. *              |       | Florida                                 |
| 13.  Gevity  XIV, LLC *                  |       | Delaware                                |
| 14.  Staff  Leasing, LLC *               |       | Delaware                                |
| 15.  Concorda  Insurance Company Limited |       | Bermuda                                 |
| 16.  Gevity  Insurance Agency, Inc. |       | Delaware                                |

 

----

* Also does businessunder the name “Gevity HR”.

 

----
| (logo) WELLS 

           FARGO | **Commercial  Mortgage Servicing**D1050-084,  8th Floor  401 South Tryon St.  Charlotte, NC 28202  1-800-326-1334 |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

 **ANNUAL STATEMENT OFCOMPLIANCE**

 

 

Reference is hereby made to that certain Pooling and Servicing Agreementdated as of June 1, 2014, by and among WELLS FARGO COMMERCIAL MORTGAGESECURITIES, INC., as Depositor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION, asMaster Servicer, LNR PARTNERS, LLC, as Special Servicer, SITUS HOLDINGS, LLC,as Trust Advisor, WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as CertificateAdministrator, as Tax Administrator, and Custodian, and WILMINGTON TRUST,NATIONAL ASSOCIATION as Trustee, with respect to Commercial MortgagePass-Through Certificates Series 2014-LC16 (the "Agreement"). Capitalizedterms used herein not otherwise defined shall have the meanings assigned in theAgreement.

 

Pursuant to Section 11.12 of this Agreement, I, Leslie Hayton,Managing Director of Commercial Mortgage Services do hereby certify that:

 

1.      A review of the activities of the Master Servicer during theperiod from January 1, 2018 through December 31, 2018 (the “Reporting Period”),and of its performance per the Agreement during such period has been made undermy supervision, and

 

2.      To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the MasterServicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under this Agreement in allmaterial respects throughout the the Reporting Period.

 

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the undersigned has executed this Certificate as of the 28th day of February 2019.

 

 

/s/Leslie Hayton

LeslieHayton

ManagingDirector

WellsFargo Bank

 

 

| Wells Fargo Bank,  N.A. | (logo) Together  we’ll go far |
|-------------------------|-------------------------------------|
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Justice

###### Antitrust Division

                    Notice is hereby given that, on August 18, 2010, pursuant to Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301*et seq.*                     (“the Act”), Marine Well Containment Venture (“MWCV”) has filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities and nationalities of the parties to the production venture and any person who controls a party to the venture and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances.                

Pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act, the identities of the parties to the venture are: Chevron USA, Inc., Houston, TX; ConocoPhillips Co., Houston, TX; ExxonMobil Development Co., Houston, TX; and Shell Offshore Inc., Houston, TX. The general area of MWCV's planned activity is (i) to design, produce (assemble and/or construct), operate, maintain, and own a system to provide emergency hydrocarbon well containment and related non-emergency services in the Gulf of Mexico and potentially in other regions; and (ii) to perform and sponsor related research and development activities.

Patricia A. Brink,

Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.

[FR Doc. 2010-25206 Filed 10-8-10; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
EXHIBIT 32

  Certifications Required by Section 1350 of Title 18 of the United States Code

      Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, each of the
undersigned hereby certifies in his or her capacity as an officer of PennFed
Financial Services, Inc. (the "Company") that the Quarterly Report of the
Company on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2005 fully
complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act
of 1934 and that the information contained in such report fairly presents, in
all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
Company as of the dates and for the periods presented in the financial
statements included in such report.

                               By:   /s/ Joseph L. LaMonica
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Joseph L. LaMonica
                                     President and Chief
                                     Executive Officer

                                     Date: May 10, 2005


                               By:   /s/ Claire M. Chadwick
                                     -------------------------------------------
                                     Claire M. Chadwick
                                     Executive Vice President,
                                     Chief Financial Officer and Controller

                                     Date: May 10, 2005


                                       31
Exhibit 32.3

 

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANTTOSECTION 906**

**OFTHESARBANES-OXLEYACT**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Highwoods Realty Limited Partnership (the “Operating Partnership”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Edward J. Fritsch, President and Chief Executive Officer of Highwoods Properties, Inc., general partner of the Operating Partnership, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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 Operating Partnership. |
|--------|----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| /s/ EDWARDJ.FRITSCH                                                           |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Edward J. FritschPresident and Chief Executive Officer of the General Partner |   |
| May 8, 2009                                                         |   |
**EXHIBIT 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF**

**THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

 

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofConsolidated Graphics, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the periodending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and ExchangeCommission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, G. Christopher Colville,Executive Vice President, Chief Financial and Accounting Officer and Secretaryof the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, asadopted 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)           Informationcontained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 

Dated:    October27, 2004

 

 
|   | /s/ G. Christopher  Colville               |   |
|--------|--------------------------------------------|--------|
|   | G. Christopher Colville                    |
|   | Executive Vice  President, Chief Financial |
|   | and Accounting Officer  and Secretary      |

 

----
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000920941
<NAME> RED ROOF INNS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-02-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-04-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUL-04-1998
<CASH>                                           9,885
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   13,677
<ALLOWANCES>                                       782
<INVENTORY>                                     10,009
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                39,150
<PP&E>                                         930,958
<DEPRECIATION>                                 102,462
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 958,087
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           57,906
<BONDS>                                        518,101
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           286
<OTHER-SE>                                     354,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   958,087
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               182,922
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   90,445
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                44,827
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   160
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              23,687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 24,011
<INCOME-TAX>                                     9,340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             14,671
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    14,671
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .53
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53
        

</TABLE>
#### STATE ex rel. Albert HUEY v. STATE of Louisiana.

No. 2011-KH-0450.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 8, 2011.

In re Huey, Albert; —Plaintiff; Applying For Supervisory and/or Remedial Writs, Parish of E. Baton Rouge, 19th Judicial District Court Div. G, No. 01-11-0038; to the Court of Appeal, First- Circuit, No. 2011 KW 0147.

Denied.
No. 13,690.

#### The State *v.*Fields.

Criminal *Law.*— False *Pretences.*— Felonious *Intent.*— To sustain a charge of obtaining goods by false pretences a felonious intent must be shown.

From the Marshall Circuit Court.

*C.*P. *Drummond,*Prosecuting Attorney, for the State.

Coffey, J.

This was a' prosecution by the State against the appellee, by affidavit and information, for obtaining goods by false pretences. On motion of the appellee, the affidavit and information were quashed by the court below, and the State, by its prosecuting attorney, excepted.

The affidavit and information are quite lengthy, and no good purpose would be served by setting them out in full. They detail with great minuteness the • negotiations between the affiant, John Miller, and the appellee, Theodore Fields, which finally resulted in the exchange of a thirty-dollar horse for a four-dollar watch. That the affiant was the loser by the transaction is not to be doubted, but, we think, the facts set out fall far short of constituting a public offence. They may be sufficient to give the affiant a cause of action against the appellee for the difference in value between the watch, as represented, and its actual value, but they fall short *492of showing that felonious intent necessary to sustain a charge •of obtaining goods under false pretences. We do not think the court erred in quashing the affidavit and information in this cause.

Filed April 25, 1889.

Judgment affirmed.