alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                                            <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                  3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JUL-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                              13,835
<SECURITIES>                                             0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      153,322
<ALLOWANCES>                                         6,526
<INVENTORY>                                              0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   171,020
<PP&E>                                             125,605
<DEPRECIATION>                                      84,718
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     304,386
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              165,348
<BONDS>                                            106,098
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                    0
<PREFERRED>                                              0
<COMMON>                                            15,012
<OTHER-SE>                                          17,364
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       304,386
<SALES>                                                  0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   146,323
<CGS>                                              117,615
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      135,700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                         0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                         0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     390
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                     12,257
<INCOME-TAX>                                         5,919
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  6,338
<DISCONTINUED>                                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                          0
<CHANGES>                                                0
<NET-INCOME>                                         6,356
<EPS-BASIC>                                         0.41
<EPS-DILUTED>                                            0


</TABLE>
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.                  

###### Consumer Product Safety Commission

# Time and Date:

Wednesday, November 3, 2010; 11 a.m.-12 Noon.

# Place:

Hearing Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, Maryland.

# Status:

Closed to the Public.

## Matter To Be Considered

### Compliance Status Report

The Commission staff will brief the Commission on the status of compliance matters.

For a recorded message containing the latest agenda information, call (301) 504-7948.

# Contact Person for More Information:

Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

Dated: October 27, 2010.

Todd A. Stevenson,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2010-27748 Filed 10-29-10; 4:15 pm]

BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
EXHIBIT 32.2

                            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 report of Taylor Madison Corp. (the "Company") on
Form  10-KSB  for  the year ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange  Commission  on  the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Timothy Hart, Chief
Financial  Officer  of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 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.



Date:  October  18,  2004

/s/ Timothy  Hart
-----------------
Timothy  Hart
Chief  Financial  Officer

<PAGE>
X-57 Maxwell

NASA’s X-57 Maxwell is an 

experimental aircraft designed 

to test operating multiple electric motors for use in turning 

propellers – an idea known as 

“distributed electric propulsion.” The goal is to demonstrate an all-electric airplane 

that is more efficient, quieter 

and more environmentally 

friendly. Knowledge gained 

from this research will help 

engineers design future electric-powered aircraft for everything from urban air mobility to 

moving passengers and cargo 

between nearby cities.

@NASAaero

#FlyNASA

https://www.nasa.gov/centers/

armstrong/news/FactSheets/FS109.html
#### Victoria SHAEV, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Sir Ronald HAMPEL; John P. Mulroney; Marina V.N. Whitman; Alain J.P. Belda; Hugh M. Morgan; Henry B. Schacht; Franklin A. Thomas; Kenneth W. Dam; Judith M. Gueron; Paul H. O’Neill; Joseph T. Gorman; George E. Bergeron; Richard L. Fischer; L. Patrick Hassey; Richard B. Kelson; Denis A. Demblowski; Alcoa, Inc. and Pricewaterhousecoopers, LLP, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-9453.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

Sept. 17, 2003.

A. Arnold Gershon, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., New York, New York, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Warren H. Colodner, Kirkpatrick & Lockhart LLP; James J. Capra, Jr., Or-rick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP; Evan R. Chesler and Daniel Slifldn, Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, New York, New York, for Defendants-Appellees.

PRESENT: CALABRESI, KATZMANN, Circuit Judges, and POLLACK,* District Judge.

*

 Honorable Milton Pollack, Senior United States District Judge for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.

SUMMARY ORDER

Plaintiff-Appellant Victoria Shaev appeals from district court rulings granting defendants’ motion to dismiss her amended complaint, and denying her motions to allow discovery and to enlarge the record. Shaev alleges that a proxy statement issued by the defendants on March 8, 1999, violated Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78n(a), and Rule 14a-9, promulgated thereunder, 17 C.F.R. § 240.14a-9, by making material misstatements and omissions as to the number of shares available under a proposed stock incentive plan, and by failing to provide a Black-Scholes estimate of the plan’s cost. Further, she contends that the district court abused its discretion: (1) in denying her motion to allow discovery on the issue of whether reasonable estimates of these figures were available to the defendants when they disseminated the proxy statement; and (2) in excluding the report of an independent proxy statement review firm from the record.

The district court acted well within its discretion in denying the plaintiffs motions to allow discovery and to enlarge the rec*155ord. We also agree with the court below that our decision in *Resnik v. Swartz, et al.,*308 F.3d 147 (2d Cir.2002), requires that the plaintiffs amended complaint be dismissed under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). We need not, therefore, reach the other questions raised by this appeal.1

We have considered all of the appellant’s arguments and found them to be without merit. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons stated by the district court, we AFFIRM.

1

. Thus, we need not decide whether plaintiff's complaint could also be dismissed for failure to make a demand on Alcoa’s Board of Directors, nor whether plaintiff's complaint was pleaded with sufficient particularity.
****

## Adam Bootle

----

I was born in East London, England in Dec 71 (missed most of Apollo!)  and I always enjoyed space type things,  but it wasn't until I sawAndrew Chaikin's book "A Man On The Moon" in my local bookshop that I really became interested in the US Space program (a bit of a late starter I suppose!).

       In June of '99 I finally got to Kennedy Space Centre, and it was thebest holiday of my life (even better than all the beer drinking ones!) and Ihope to go back as soon as possible to see a launch."
National Aeronautics and 

Space Administration 

Office of the Administrator 

Washington, DC 20546-0001

National Aeronautics and Space Administration 

Policy Statement on Anti-Harassment 

At the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) we are fully committed to 

assuring the safety and effectiveness of our workforce and our missions. Consequently, 

NASA strictly prohibits harassment and is fully committed to providing a safe and 

harassment-free work environment. 

The Agency defines harassment as any “[c]onduct that is unwelcome, verbal or physical, 

regardless of whether it is based on an individual’s race, color, gender, national origin, 

religion, age, disability, sexual orientation, status as a parent, genetic information, gender 

identity, or retaliation, when: (a) the behavior can reasonably be considered to adversely 

affect the work environment, or (b) an employment decision affecting the employee is based 

upon the employee’s acceptance or rejection of such conduct.” 

NASA encourages all employees to report and help prevent workplace harassment, and 

NASA strictly prohibits retaliation for raising allegations of harassment or providing 

information related to such allegations. The Agency’s Anti-Harassment Program provides 

for prompt, thorough, and impartial investigations of harassment complaints, and individuals 

reporting harassment are assured that NASA will protect the confidentiality of harassment 

complaints to the fullest extent possible. The Agency will take immediate and appropriate 

corrective action in situations involving harassment and proactively in other situations to 

reasonably prevent harassment from occurring. 

NASA employees have multiple avenues to report alleged harassment, including but not 

limited to: any NASA supervisor; an Anti-Harassment Coordinator at Headquarters or one 

of the NASA Centers; the Office of Diversity and Equal Opportunity; and the Office of Chief 

Human Capital Officer. To learn more about NASA’s Anti-Harassment Program, as well as 

Policy and Procedures, please visit the NASA Anti-Harassment Web page and review the 

NASA Anti-Harassment Policy and Procedures Implementation Guide. To find an AntiHarassment Coordinator at your Center, visit the Center Anti-Harassment Coordinators Web 

page. 

Together, we can ensure that all NASA personnel have the opportunity to contribute to the 

success of our mission in an environment free of harassment. Harassment compromises the 

safety of our workforce and prevents our personnel from fully contributing to our missions; 

therefore, it has no place at NASA. 

Stephen G. Jurczyk

Administrator (Acting) 

02/25/2021

Date
# Sitemap

## 1990

- Home
- Sitemap
- 1990

            - March
            - April
            - May
            - August
            - September
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 66385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27308]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT

[Docket No. FR-5415-N-31]


Notice of Availability: Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for 
Fiscal Year 2010; Special Needs Assistance Programs (SNAPS) Technical 
Assistance; Request for Qualifications

AGENCY: Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: HUD announces the availability of the applicant information, 
deadline information, and other requirements for the Fiscal Year (FY) 
2010 Special Needs Assistance Programs Technical Assistance (SNAPS-TA) 
Program NOFA. The SNAPS-TA NOFA makes available up to $11.1 million for 
technical assistance; approximately $9.9 million under HUD McKinney-
Vento Technical Assistance for homeless assistance programs, Homeless 
Management Information System (HMIS) data collection, reporting and 
research, including the Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) TA 
activities; and approximately $1.2 million under the American Recovery 
and Reinvestment Act for Homelessness Prevention and Rapid Re-Housing 
Program (HPRP) TA activities. Carried over or recaptured funds from 
previous fiscal years, if available, may be added to this amount.
    The SNAPS-TA NOFA providing information regarding the application 
process, funding criteria and eligibility requirements can be found 
using the Department of Housing and Urban Development agency link on 
the Grants.gov/Find Web site at http://www.grants.gov/search/agency.do. 
A link to Grants.gov is also available on the HUD Web site at http://www.hud.gov/offices/adm/grants/fundsavail.cfm. The Catalogue of Federal 
Domestic Assistance (CFDA) numbers for the SNAPS-TA are: 14.261 
McKinney-Vento Homeless Technical Assistance and 14.262 HPRP Technical 
Assistance. Applications must be submitted electronically through 
Grants.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions regarding specific program 
requirements should be directed to the agency contact identified in the 
program NOFA. Questions regarding the 2010 General Section should be 
directed to the Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight 
at 202-708-0667 (this is not a toll-free number) or the NOFA 
Information Center at 1-800-HUD-8929 (toll-free). Persons with hearing 
or speech impairments may access these numbers via TTY by calling the 
Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

    Dated: October 22, 2010.
Barbara S. Dorf,
Director, Office of Departmental Grants Management and Oversight, 
Office of the Chief of the Human Capital Officer.
[FR Doc. 2010-27308 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-67-P
RESIGNATION OF ADMINISTRATOR
                               OF
                        ABI CAPITAL TRUST


 The undersigned hereby resigns as an Administrator of ABI
Capital Trust, a Delaware statutory trust, under the Amended and
Restated Trust Agreement, dated July 7, 1998 (the "Trust
Agreement"), by and among the American Bancshares, Inc., a
Florida corporation, as Depositor, Bankers Trust Company, a New
York banking corporation, as Property Trustee, and Bankers Trust
(Delaware), a Delaware banking corporation, as Delaware Trustee,
effective as of, and conditioned upon, the closing of the merger
of American Bancshares, Inc. with and into Gold Banc Acquisition
Corporation XI, Inc., a Kansas corporation ("Acquisition
Subsidiary"), pursuant to the Agreement and Plan of
Reorganization, dated as of September 6, 1999, as amended January
24, 2000, by and among American Bancshares, Inc., Acquisition
Subsidiary, and Gold Banc Corporation, Inc., a Kansas corporation
and parent corporation of Acquisition Subsidiary.

 To the extent that the undersigned is otherwise employed by
American, nothing in this resignation, shall be deemed to
constitute a resignation of such employment.

 All Capitalized terms used and not otherwise defined herein
shall have the respective meanings assigned to such terms in the
Trust Agreement.

     Dated March 20, 2000.


                                   /s/ Brian M. Watterson
                                   Brian M. Watterson
<PAGE>
FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 26, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

JOHN MOORE,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

DR. SAM JAHANI; SAM JAHANI

PERSONAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-1207

(D.C. No. 1:10-CV-00428-ZLW)

ORDER

Before LUCERO, HARTZ, and TYMKOVICH, Circuit Judges.

Plaintiff John Moore, appearing pro se, appeals the district court’s order

remanding his case to Colorado state court and the order denying reconsideration. 

This court directed the plaintiff to show cause as to why this appeal should not be

dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The plaintiff filed a response. After

considering his response and the applicable law, we dismiss this appeal.

“The authority of appellate courts to review district-court orders remanding

removed cases to state court is substantially limited by statute.” Powerex Corp.

v. Reliant Energy Svcs., Inc., 551 U.S. 224, 229 (2007). Specifically, “[a]n order

remanding a case to State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on

Appellate Case: 10-1207 Document: 01018430001 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 1 
2

appeal or otherwise,” except for certain civil rights cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d). 

This statutory section has been interpreted to preclude appellate review of

remands based on defects in the removal procedure and for lack of subject matter

jurisdiction. Quackenbush v. Allstate Ins. Co., 517 U.S. 706, 711-12 (1996);

Kennedy v. Lubar; 273 F.3d 1293, 1297 (10th Cir. 2001).

In this case, the district court found defects in the removal process. 

Specifically, the district court noted that only defendants, not plaintiffs, may

remove cases from state court and that the plaintiff did not provide sufficient

information in the notice of removal.

In his response to the order to show cause, the plaintiff asserted that civil

rights claims were at issue. The exception allowing appellate review of remand

orders in certain civil rights cases is reserved for defendants removing cases, not

plaintiffs. 28 U.S.C. § 1443.

In sum, because the district court remanded for defects in the removal

procedure and no exception applies, we do not have jurisdiction to review the

district court’s orders. 28 U.S.C. § 1447(d); Kennedy at 1297.

Accordingly, this appeal is DISMISSED.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

by: Lara Smith

Counsel to the Clerk

Appellate Case: 10-1207 Document: 01018430001 Date Filed: 05/26/2010 Page: 2
Order entered September 5, 2014

In The 

## Court of Appeals **Fifth District of Texas at Dallas** No. 05 - 14 - 01124 - CV No. 05 - 14 - 01125 - CV IN RE CRAIG WATKINS, CRIMI NAL DISTRICT ATTORNE Y OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS, Relator Original Proceeding from the 292nd Judic ial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F13 - 00257 - V Trial Court Cause No. F13 - 54696 - V 

### O RDER Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DENY relator’s petition for writ of mandamus. We DENY as unnecessary relator’s motion for lea ve to file his petition for writ of mandamus. T EX . R. A PP . P. 52.1. We DENY as moot relator’s motion for temporary relief. We ORDER relator to bear the costs of this original proceeding.

/s/ DOUGLAS S. LANG JUSTICE
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY v. JOHN M. CUFF.

May 16, 1978.

Petition for certification denied.
**EXHIBIT 99.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, James C. Flores, Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer of Plains Exploration & Production Company, certify that: 

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of PlainsExploration & Production Company; 

 

2. Based on myknowledge, this quarterly 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report; 

 

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

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we have:

 

a. designed such disclosure controls andprocedures 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 quarterly report is being prepared;

 

b. evaluated the effectiveness of theregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the “Evaluation Date”); and 

 

c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date; 

 

5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board of directors (or persons performingthe equivalent function): 

 

a. allsignificant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant’s auditors anymaterial weaknesses in internal controls; and 

 

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal controls; and 

 

6. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not therewere significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies andmaterial weaknesses.
#### Lully Ann Rupard et al. *v.*Willis Rupard’s Administrator.

Personal Representative — Suit to Settle Personal Estate Among Creditors — Heirs Hot Proper Parties — No Guardian Ad Litem Necessary.

Where there is no real estate to sell, and as the administrator represents the heirs, they are not necessary parties to a suit to distribute the said estate of the decedent among his creditors, as the decedent was insolvent. There was no error in not appointing a guardian *ad litem*for the infant heirs.

APPEAL EBOM CLARK CIECUIT COUET.

January 31, 1867.

Opinion oe the Coubt by

Judge Williams :

There is nothing to show that the administrator of Willis Bupard, deceased, collected the $375 which had been adjudged by the Madison Circuit Court to the widow as an equivalent for her dower interest in the land sold by her deceased husband to Edmonson; and if he did collect it he did so as her agent and not as administrator, as it was no part of the assets in his hands he committed no error in not reporting it and the court had nothing to do with it in distributing the assets *pro rata*among decedent’s creditors. There was no real estate to sell and as the administrator represents the personal estate and not the heirs-at-law of decedent they were unnecessary parties in a suit for a *pro rata*distribution of personalty alone among the creditors of the insolvent decedent; therefore, there was no reversible error in *29not appointing a guardian *ad litem*for the minor children and heirs-at-law of decedent who were made parties and served with process.

Wherefore, the judgment is *affirmed.*