alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 196 (Thursday, October 9, 2014)]
[Notices]
[Pages 61095-61096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-24125]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[LLCO956000 L14200000.BJ0000]


Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Filing of Plats of Survey; Colorado

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

[[Page 61096]]

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) Colorado State Office is 
publishing this notice to inform the public of the intent to officially 
file the survey plat listed below and afford a proper period of time to 
protest this action prior to the plat filing. During this time, the 
plat will be available for review in the BLM Colorado State Office.

DATES: Unless there are protests of this action, the filing of the plat 
described in this notice will happen on November 10, 2014.

ADDRESSES: BLM Colorado State Office, Cadastral Survey, 2850 Youngfield 
Street, Lakewood, CO 80215-7093.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Randy Bloom, Chief Cadastral Surveyor 
for Colorado, (303) 239-3856.
    Persons who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may 
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 to 
contact the above individual during normal business hours. The FIRS is 
available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to leave a message or 
question with the above individual. You will receive a reply during 
normal business hours.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The plat, in 2 sheets, and field notes of 
the dependent resurvey and survey in Township 37 North, Range 2 East, 
New Mexico Principal Meridian, Colorado, were accepted on September 24, 
2014.

Randy Bloom,
Chief Cadastral Surveyor for Colorado.
[FR Doc. 2014-24125 Filed 10-8-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-JB-P
#### In the Matter of Adonis Earl S. Suffolk County Department of Social Services, Respondent; Earl S., Appellant.

[787 NYS2d 892]

In a proceeding pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b to terminate parental rights on the ground of abandonment, the father appeals from an order of the Family Court, Suffolk County (Lehman, J.), entered October 6, 2003, which, after a fact-finding hearing, terminated his parental rights and transferred custody and guardianship rights to the Suffolk *615County Department of Social Services for the purpose of adoption.

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

The petitioner presented clear and convincing evidence of the father’s abandonment of his child during the six-month period before the filing of the petition. There was a total absence of contact between the father and the child during this period, although the father was not prevented or discouraged by the petitioner from having contact *(see*Social Services Law § 384-b [5] [b]; *Matter of Annette B.,*2 AD3d 721, 722 [2003]; *Matter of Derrick J.,*287 AD2d 503 [2001]).

The father testified, with reference to his abandonment of his child, that an order of protection, which he failed to produce, directed him to stay away from his child. This did not prevent him from contacting or communicating with the petitioner, and his incarceration was no excuse for failing to contact his child by telephone or by letter *(see Matter of Jahmir Domevlo J.,*8 AD3d 280, 281 [2004]; *Matter of Derrick J., supra; Matter of Ronald D.,*282 AD2d 533 [2001]).

The record indicates that the father was provided effective assistance of counsel *(see Matter of Thomas Z.,*4 AD3d 372, 373 [2004]). H. Miller, J.P., Goldstein, Crane and Skelos, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
REGISTRANT'S DECEMBER 31, 1998 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          MAR-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1998
<CASH>                                      10,126,132
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  344,390
<ALLOWANCES>                                    28,000
<INVENTORY>                                 32,461,764
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            44,289,211
<PP&E>                                      28,312,250
<DEPRECIATION>                              14,616,057
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              58,631,404
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       22,852,287
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        65,320
<OTHER-SE>                                  35,612,840
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                58,631,404
<SALES>                                    115,523,159
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           115,523,159
<CGS>                                       80,009,951
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            28,648,812
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           (118,595)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              6,982,991
<INCOME-TAX>                                 2,871,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          4,111,991
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 4,111,991
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .63
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .61
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7741 

COY RAY PHELPS,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

ANGELA WALDEN WEAVER; CHARLES GRIFFIN;

CHARLENE HARRIS; ROBERT LUCKING, Dr.; ARTHUR

BEELER; BRUCE CAPEHART, Dr.,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Durham. William L. Osteen, District

Judge. (CA-04-439-1)

Submitted: January 27, 2005 Decided: February 7, 2005

Before LUTTIG and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Coy Ray Phelps, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Coy Ray Phelps appeals the district court’s order

dismissing without prejudice his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint.

Our review of the record and the district court’s order adopting

the recommendation of the magistrate judge discloses no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. See Phelps v. Weaver, No. CA-04-439-1 (M.D.N.C.

Oct. 12, 2004). 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
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



In connection with the Quarterly Report of Ventana Medical Systems, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Christopher M. Gleeson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act
of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:



| | (1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m); 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/ Christopher M. GleesonChristopher M. GleesonPresident, Chief Executive Officer and DirectorJuly 22, 2004
#### Lynn *v.*Jeter.

*Thursday, December 5.*

an indorsee of a sealed note for the payment of 1,000 dollars, indorsed it in blank to *B.,*who, without indorsing the note, delivered it to' *C.,*and the latter sold it to *D.*without indorsing it. ' *D.*sued *Jl.*as indorser, an indorsement in full to the plaintiff being written over the defendant’s name. *Held,*that, supposing the plaintiff could only recover the amount the defendant had received from *B.*for the note, (of which, however, no opinion was given,) still a statement made by *B.*whilst he held the note, that he had paid for it only 650 dollars, could not be proved by the defendant; *B.*himself being a competent witness in the cause.

ERROR to the *Franklin*Circuit Court.

Blackford, J.

— This was au action of assumpsit brought by *Jeter*against *Lynn*on the assignment of a sealed note. The note was for 1,000 dollars, and payable five years after date. Plea, the general issue. The cause was submitted to the Court, and judgment rendered in favour of the plaintiff for 1,072 dollars and costs.

It appears that the note was made by one *Lowe*to *Jesse*York, indorsed by the latter to one Shoup, and by *Shoup*to the defendant, the indorsements being in full; that, after-wards, the defendant indorsed the note in blank, and delivered it to one *Barwick;*that the latter, without indorsing it, delivered it to one *Brown ;*and that Brown, without indorsing it, sold and delivered it to the plaintiff It further appears that, at the trial, an indorsement in full to the plaintiff was written by him on the nóte over the defendant’s name ; that the maker of the note was, at the time it became due, and afterwards, notoriously insolvent. After proof of the *301above facts, the defendant offered to prove that *BarwicJc,*whilst he was the *bona fide*holder of the note under blank indorsement, had said that he had given only 650 dollars for the note ; which evidence was objected to and the objection sustained.

*J. Byman*and P. *L.*Spooner, for the plaintiff.

*G.*Holland, for the defendant.

Supposing the plaintiff could only recover in this suit the amount which the defendant received from *BarwicJc*for the note, of which, however, we give no opinion, still the evidence was inadmissible. It was objectionable on the ground that it was not the best evidence on the subject. *BarwicJc*•himself was a competent witness, and should have been sworn. He could have no interest in reducing the amount to be recovered by the plaintiff against the defendant. His interest, if he had any, was the other way.

*Per Curiam.*

— The judgment is affirmed with costs.
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

JUDGMENT

Eric Sosa, Appellant

No. 06-13-00090-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the Criminal District Court 3 

of Tarrant County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 

1275754D). Memorandum Opinion 

delivered by Justice Carter, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Eric Sosa, has adequately indicated his inability to pay costs 

of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 12, 2013

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE
                           SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
                            (18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350)

In  connection  with  the  Annual  Report  of  AIMS  Worldwide,  Inc.,  a Nevada
corporation  (the  "Company"),  on  Form 10-KSB for the year ending December 31,
2002  as  filed  with  the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I,
Gerald  Garcia Jr., Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to
Sec.  906  of  the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350), that to my
knowledge:

(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  result  of operations of the Company.




/s/  Gerald  Garcia  Jr.
--------------------------
Gerald  Garcia  Jr.
Chief  Executive  Officer
April  1,  2003
```

[Congressional Bills 108th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2243 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

  2d Session
                                S. 2243

     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 26, 2004

 Ms. Murkowski introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
       referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To extend the deadline for commencement of construction of a 
             hydroelectric project in the State of Alaska.

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

SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF TIME FOR FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION 
              PROJECT.

    Notwithstanding the time period specified in section 13 of the 
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 806) that would otherwise apply to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission project numbered 11480, the 
Commission may, at the request of the licensee for the project, and 
after reasonable notice, in accordance with the good faith, due 
diligence, and public interest requirements of that section and the 
Commission's procedures under that section extend the time period 
during which the licensee is required to commence the construction of 
the project for 3 consecutive 2-year periods beyond the date that is 4 
years after the date of issuance of the license.
                                 <all>
```
No. 87-6327.

#### Timmonds *v.*United States.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 32.2

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly Report of Redhook
Ale Brewery, Incorporated (the "Company") on Form 10-Q/A for the period ending
June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, David J. Mickelson, Chief Financial 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.

      A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the SEC or its
staff upon request.

Date: March 31, 2006

                                       BY:   /s/ David J. Mickelson
                                          ------------------------------------
                                                  David J. Mickelson
                                                  President,
                                                  Chief Financial Officer
                                                  and Chief Operating Officer
#### Peerless Miller *v.*State of Indiana.

[No. 2-473A83.

Filed March 11, 1974.

Rehearing denied April 15, 1974.

Transfer denied August 20,1974.]

*504
      *Paul E. Peach,*of Indianapolis, for appellant. '

*Theodore L. Sendak,*Attorney General, *Robert F. Colker,*Assistant Attorney General, for appellee.

Sullivan, P.J.

Appellant Miller contests his conviction of assault and battery with intent to kill solely upon an assertion that the evidence was insufficient.

According to Miller’s testimony, he and the victim, Watkins, both had firearms in their possession at the time of a barroom altercation between them. During the course of the argument, the evidence discloses that Miller utilized his weapon and shot Watkins three times striking him in the arm and back. The victim’s brother who accompanied Watkins was also shot in the arm.

The evidence was in conflict as to the cause of the argument and as to which of the parties was the aggressor. Miller testified that he fired six or seven shots but did so only in self-defense so as to prevent Watkins from shooting first. .

Appellant argues two specific aspects of the evidence:

> 1. That there was no substantial evidence of a specific intent to kill and

> 2. That the State failed to rebut his evidence of self-defense.

With respect to Miller’s first contention, it was within the discretion of the trial court sitting without a jury to believe the testimony of the victim’s brother that the defendant stated to Watkins “I’m going to blow your brains out.” Even were it not for such testimony, the defendant’s use of his gun under the circumstances and in a manner calculated to cause death, as here, carries with it a permissible inference of the requisite intent. *Livingston*v. *State*(1972), 257 Ind. 620, 277 N.E. 2d 363.

With respect to the second contention of Miller, it is clear that when a defendant has interposed a claim of self-defense, whether the evidence is sufficient to rebut such claim is a ques*505tion of ultimate fact to be decided by the trier of fact. *Robinson*v. *State*(1962), 243 Ind. 192, 184 N.E.2d 16; *Woods*v. *State*(1973), 159 Ind. App. 92, 304 N.E.2d 817.

The substance of Miller’s entire argument is to the effect that the trial court, sitting without a jury, should have believed the testimony most favorable to his position as opposed to the contrary evidence. Quite clearly, such contention is wholly meritless. We consider upon review the evidence most favorable to the judgment, together with the reasonable inferences which may be drawn therefrom. *Mc Afee*v. *State*(1973), 259 Ind. 687, 291 N.E.2d 554.

The judgment is affirmed.

Buchanan and White, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 307 N.E.2d 889.
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

_______________________________

MUSCOGEE (CREEK) NATION, a 

federally-recognized Tribe, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

BRAD HENRY, Governor of Oklahoma; 

W.A. "DREW" EDMONDSON, Attorney 

General of Oklahoma; THE OKLAHOMA 

TAX COMMISSION; THOMAS KEMP, 

JR., Chairman of the Tax Commission; 

JERRY JOHNSON, Vice Chairman, 

Oklahoma Tax Commission; 

CONSTANCE IRBY, Secretary, Oklahoma 

Tax Commission, 

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 10-7026

(D.C. No. 6:10-CV-00019-JHP)

(E.D. Okla.)

_______________________________

ORDER

_______________________________

The stipulation filed by the parties to dismiss the captioned appeal is granted.

Each party shall bear its own costs.

A copy of this order shall stand as and for the mandate of this court.

Entered for the Court,

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk

FILED

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

May 6, 2010

Elisabeth A. Shumaker

Clerk of Court

Appellate Case: 10-7026 Document: 01018416925 Date Filed: 05/06/2010 Page: 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONDENSED CONSOLIDATED BALANCE SHEET AND STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS FOR PREFERRED
NETWORKS, INC. AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FORM 10-Q
FOR THE QUARTERLY PERIOD ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1999.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                       3,048,055
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (674,766)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,228,285
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,948,105
<PP&E>                                      30,336,741
<DEPRECIATION>                             (12,908,383)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              47,774,505
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       18,106,334
<BONDS>                                      3,623,904
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       26,498,046
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                    58,149,612
<OTHER-SE>                                 (58,603,392)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                      7,406,638
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            29,054,591
<CGS>                                        6,383,482
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               22,581,127
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            12,915,660
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           1,433,376
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (7,860,406)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   400,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (7,460,406)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 (72,884)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                836,428
<CHANGES>                                   (1,832,398)
<NET-INCOME>                                (8,529,260)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (.68)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.68)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 23.1**

 

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

 

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement and related Prospectus (Form S-3 No. 333-115372) of eDiets.com,Inc., the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-90046) pertaining to the eDiets.com, Inc. Stock Option Plan and the Registration Statement (Form S-8 No. 333-122763) pertaining to the eDiets.com, Inc. Equity Incentive Plan of our report datedFebruary 11, 2005, with respect to the consolidated financial statements and schedule of eDiets.com, Inc. included in this Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year ended December 31, 2004. 

 

/s/ Ernst & Young LLP 

Certified Public Accountants 

 

Ft. Lauderdale, Florida 

March 17, 2005