alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
a
= %y
a =
z FS
Ve comm’

July 15, 2013

Notice of Consultation on Regulatory Review and Consultation Policy

Dear Tribal Leader:

On behalf of the National Indian Gaming Commission (NIGC or Commission), we invite you to
participate in a consultation meeting on a notice of proposed reinterpretation of NIGC regulations
and IGRA.

Through this notice, the Commission is seeking comment on a proposed reinterpretation of an
agency decision regarding the classification of server based electronic bingo system games that
can be played utilizing only one touch of a button (“one touch bingo”). The proposed
reinterpretation is in response to questions the NIGC received from the regulated community and
the public about whether one touch bingo is a Class II or Class III game. We know that the best
results can be achieved after meaningful consultation with Indian tribes and we look forward to
your participation.

The NIGC recognizes and respects the sovereignty of Indian tribes and the government-to-
government relationship that exists between the United States and tribal governments.
Accordingly, the NIGC is committed to implementing the President’s November 5, 2009
Executive Memorandum on Tribal Consultation with Indian tribes and Executive Order 13175
prior to and during any rulemaking process.

As such, we invite all tribal leaders to share their views with the Commission these regulations
and the Draft Consultation Policy at a consultation scheduled for August 14, 2013 in Oklahoma
City, Oklahoma, from 2:00 pm to 4:00 p.m., at the following location:

Room 8

Renaissance Oklahoma City Convention Center
10 North Broadway Ave

Oklahoma City, OK

For those tribal leaders unable to attend this consultation, we invite you to submit written

comments by e-mail to reg.review@nige.gov, or by U.S. mail to National Indian Gaming
Commission, Attn: Regulatory Review, 1441 L Street, NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005.

The Commission intends to post comments received and transcripts of each consultation on the
NIGC website under the heading “Tribal Consultation,” on the left-hand side of the NIGC home

page, www.nige.gov.

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS 1447 L St. NW, Suite 9100, Washington, DC 20005 Tel: 202.632.7003 Fax: 202.632.7066 WWW.NIGC.GoVv

REGIONAL OFFICES Portland, OR; Sacramento, CA; Phoenix, AZ; St. Paul, MN; Tulsa, OK


For planning purposes, and to accommodate all who want to attend the consultation, please RSVP
to Rita Homa, Executive Administrator, at (202) 418-9807 or by e-mail at

consultation.rsvp@nige.gov. _ Information regarding the time and location of each tribal
consultation will be posted on our website.

We are committed to working together on a government-to-government basis to maximize the
results of this process. We look forward to meeting with you should your schedule allow.

Thank you for your interest and participation.

Sincerely,
SMUUne Sy * S
Tracie L. Stevens Daniel J. Little

Chairwoman Associate Commissioner
96-1362.

#### State ex rel. Longacre v. Penton Publishing Co.

Cuyahoga App. No. 70455. On motion for attorney fees. Motion granted in the amount of $2,096.25.

Resnick and Pfeifer, JJ., dissent.
### TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED SEPTEMBER 28, 2023

NO. 03

- 21

- 00571

- CV

Texas Department of State Health Services, and Dr. Jennifer A. Shuford, in her Official Capacity as Commissioner of the Texas Department of St a te Health Services , Appellant s

v.

Sky Marketing Corp., d/b/a Hometown Hero; Create A Cig Temple, LLC; Darrell Surif;
and David Walden , Appellee s

APPEAL FROM THE 126TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY
BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE BYRNE, JUSTICES TRIANA AND THEO FANIS

AFFIRMED

-- OPINION BY JUSTICE THEOFANIS

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order s signed by the t r i a l court on November 8, 2021

.

Having reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the C ourt holds that there was no

reversible error in the trial court’s interlocutory order s

. Therefore, the C ourt affirms the trial

court’s interlocutory order s

. Th e a ppell ant s shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this

Court and in the court below.
DISCRETIONARY APPEALS ALLOWED

96-2656.

#### Castle Nursing Home, Inc. v. Sullivan.

Holmes App. No. 95CA541. *Sun spcmte,*cause held for the decision in 95-2014 and 95-2031, *Goldfuss v. Davidson,*Portage App. No. 94-P-0010; briefing schedule stayed.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED CHERYL H. MORRISON,

Appellant,

v. Case No. 5D 16

- 1683
BRANCH BANKING AND TRUST COMPANY, CAPITAL ONE BANK, NA, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Appellees

. __________________________________/ Opinion filed March 28, 2017 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Lake County , William G. Law, Jr , Judge. Benjamin C. Haynes and Daniel de Paz, of Haynes & d e Paz, P.A., Longwood, for Appellant. A. Lee Bentley, III, United States Attorney and David P. Rhodes and Holly L. Gershow, Assistant United States Attorneys, Tampa, for The United States of America, Department of Agriculture, Appellee. A. Lee Bentley, III, United States Attorney and Roberta Josephina Bodnar, Assistant United States Attorney, Orlando, for The United States of America, USDA Rural Development, Appellee. No appearance for other Appellees.

PER CURIAM.
AFFIRMED. United States v. Summerlin , 310 U.S. 414, 416 (1941).
EVANDER and BERGER, JJ., and JACOBUS, B.W., Senior Judge, concur.
EXHIBIT 23.1CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRMWe consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 33-15190 and 333-121510on Form S-3; in Registration Statement Nos. 33-47534, 333-40796, 33-54307, 333-95035 and 333-91786on Form S-8; and in Registration Statement No. 2-96386 on FormS-14 of our report dated March 8,2006, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule ofPinnacle West Capital Corporation and management’s report on the effectiveness of internal controlover financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Pinnacle West CapitalCorporation for the year ended December 31, 2005./s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPDELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP
- 4059_001
- 4060_001
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                         UT
<CIK>                             0000008154
<NAME>                            ATLANTA GAS LIGHT COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER>                         1,000,000
       
<S>                               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                     12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                 SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                    OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                      SEP-30-1996
<BOOK-VALUE>                      PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>               1,361
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                 0
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                    283
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                   68
<OTHER-ASSETS>                             16
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                          1,728
<COMMON>                                  277
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                 166
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                        60
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>            503
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                      56
<PREFERRED>                                 3
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                      555
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                        152
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                   0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>              0
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>               0
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                   0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                 0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                            0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>            459
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>           1,728
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>               1,218
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                       48
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                334
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>              1,096
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                   122
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                          8
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>            130
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                   49
<NET-INCOME>                               81
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                 4
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>              76
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                   59
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                  42
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                     90
<EPS-PRIMARY>                            0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                            0.00
        


</TABLE>
[969 NE2d 1162, 947 NYS2d 47]

#### Mark Dzielski et al., Respondents, v Essex Insurance Company, Appellant, et al., Defendant.

Decided June 5, 2012

*873APPEARANCES OF COUNSEL

*Hurwitz & Fine, EC.,*Buffalo *(Dan D. Kohane*of counsel), for appellant.

*Damon Morey LLE,*Buffalo *(Kathleen M. Reilly, Eric C. Naegely*and *Jessica M. DeMichiel*of counsel), for respondent.

OPINION OF THE COURT

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.11 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.11), order reversed, with costs, plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment denied, defendant’s motion for summary judgment granted, and judgment granted to defendant declaring that it has no obligation to indemnify its insured in the underlying personal injury action, for the reasons stated in the dissenting memorandum at the Appellate Division (90 AD3d 1493, 1495-1497 [2011]).

Concur: Chief Judge Lippman and Judges Ciparick, Graffeo, Read, Smith, Pigott and Jones.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 111 (Thursday, June 11, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 27779]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-13688]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Air Force


Intent To Grant an Exclusive Patent License

    SUMMARY: Pursuant to the provisions of Part 404 of Title 37, Code 
of Federal Regulations, which implements Public Law 96-517, as amended, 
the Department of the Air Force announces its intention to grant an 
exclusive license in favor of NeXolve Corporation, a wholly-owned 
subsidiary of ManTech, having a place of business at 655 Discovery 
Drive, Cummings Research Park, Suite 200, Huntsville, AL 35806 in any 
right, title, and interest the Air Force has in the following patent 
and patent applications: U.S. Patent Application Serial No. 11/876081, 
filed on October 22, 2007, titled ``Triangular Rollable and Collapsible 
Boom,'' by Thomas W. Murphey et al.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For an objection to the 
prospective license to be considered, it must be submitted in writing 
and be received at the following address within fifteen (15) days from 
the date of publication of this Notice. Written objection should be 
sent to: James M. Skorich, Esq. 2251 Maxwell Street SE. 377th ABW/JAN, 
Kirtland AFB, NM 87117-5773. Telephone: (505) 846-1542.

Bao-Anh Trinh,
Air Force Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-13688 Filed 6-10-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-05-P
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 Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration

          - [TA-W-65,855]

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on April 28, 2009, in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of all workers at Horizon Hobby, Inc, Ontario, California.

The petitioner requested that the petition be withdrawn. Consequently, the investigation has been terminated.

Signed at Washington, DC, this 6th day of May 2009.

Richard Church,

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E9-13465 Filed 6-8-09; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
EXHIBIT 99.1


                                  Certification
            Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002
    (Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
                                  States Code)


     Pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a)
and (b) of Section 1350,  Chapter 63 of Title 18,  United States Code),  each of
the undersigned officers of Zoom Technologies, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the
"Company"),  does hereby certify, to the best of such officer's  knowledge and
belief, that:

(1)  Amendment No. 1 to the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
     March 31, 2002 (the "Form  10-Q") of the Company  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  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all
     materials  respects,  the financial  condition and results of operations of
     the Company.

Dated: August 7, 2002             By:    /s/ Frank B. Manning
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                      Frank B. Manning
                                      Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 7, 2002             By:    /s/ Robert Crist
                                  -------------------------------------------
                                      Robert Crist
                                      Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                                Exhibit 12(b)

                              Entergy Gulf States, Inc.
             Computation of Ratios of Earnings to Fixed Charges and
        Ratios of Earnings to Combined Fixed Charges and Preferred Dividends



                                                 1994      1995     1996     1997     1998      1999
<S>                                             <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>      <C>       <C>
Fixed charges, as defined:
  Total Interest charges                        $204,134 $200,224 $193,890 $180,073 $178,220  $153,034
  Interest applicable to rentals                  21,539   16,648   14,887   15,747   16,927    16,451
                                                ------------------------------------------------------

Total fixed charges, as defined                  225,673  216,872  208,777  195,820  195,147   169,485

Preferred dividends, as defined (a)               52,210   44,651   48,690   30,028   32,031    29,355
                                                ------------------------------------------------------

Combined fixed charges and preferred            $277,883 $261,523 $257,467 $225,848 $227,178  $198,840
dividends, as defined                           ======================================================

Earnings as defined:

Income (loss) from continuing operations
  before extraordinary items and
  the cumulative effect of accounting changes   ($82,755)$122,919  ($3,887) $59,976  $46,393  $125,000
  Add:
    Income Taxes                                 (62,086)  63,244  102,091   22,402   31,773    75,165
    Fixed charges as above                       225,673  216,872  208,777  195,820  195,147   169,485
                                                ------------------------------------------------------

Total earnings, as defined (b)                   $80,832 $403,035 $306,981 $278,198 $273,313  $369,650
                                                ======================================================
Ratio of earnings to fixed charges, as defined      0.36     1.86     1.47     1.42     1.40      2.18
                                                ======================================================

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed charges and
 preferred dividends, as defined                    0.29     1.54     1.19     1.23     1.20      1.86
                                                ======================================================

(a) "Preferred dividends," as defined by SEC regulation S-K, are computed
    by dividing the preferred dividend requirement by one hundred percent
    (100%) minus the income tax rate.

(b) Earnings for the year ended December 31, 1994, for GSU were not
    adequate to cover fixed charges combined fixed charges and preferred
    dividends by $144.8 million and $197.1 million, respectively.


</TABLE>
#### In the Matter of Tasha M., an Infant. Eliezer C., Sr., Appellant; Catholic Home Bureau, Respondent. In the Matter of Eliezer C., Sr., Appellant, v Administration for Children’s Services et al., Respondents.

[824 NYS2d 617]

*388Order of disposition, Family Court, Bronx County (Sidney Gribetz, J.), entered on or about July 9, 2004, which, inter alia, determined that appellant biological father’s consent was not required for the adoption of the subject child, unanimously affirmed, without costs. Appeal from order, same court and Judge, entered on or about April 22, 2004, which denied and dismissed the custody petition, unanimously dismissed, without costs.

Appellant argues that his consent is required because the child had never been “placed with the adoptive parents” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d] [applicable to children over six months old]) or “placed for adoption” (Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [e] [applicable to children under six months old]). According to appellant, these phrases are synonymous with “adoptive placement” as defined in 18 NYCRR 421.1 (d), and require a physical placement of the child into the adoptive parents’ home, a properly executed adoption agreement recorded in the county clerk’s office, and the logging of certain information in a bound book kept by the agency. The argument is improperly raised for the first time on appeal. Had appellant raised the argument before Family Court, the agency would doubtless have adduced additional evidence as to when it decided that its plan for the child was adoption and not return to the mother, and precisely when it placed the child in her first preadoptive home *(cf. e.g. Douglas Elliman-Gibbons & Ives v Kellerman,*172 AD2d 307 [1991], *lv denied*78 NY2d 856 [1991]). In any event, were we to reach the argument, we would reject it. No agency or adoptive parents would sign an adoption agreement before knowing whether the biological father consented and, if not, whether his consent was required. Appellant’s interpretation also cuts against the promptness expected of an unwed father in manifesting parental interest, measured in terms of the baby’s life *(see Matter of Robert O. v Russell K.,*80 NY2d 254, 264 [1992]), and overlooks that in a proceeding like this pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b, the very purpose of which is to determine whether the child should be freed for adoption, whether an unwed father’s consent to adoption is required is a “threshold issue” *(see Matter of Carrie GG.,*273 AD2d 561, 562 [2000], *lv denied*95 NY2d 763 [2000]). Moreover, regardless of whether the child was placed when she was less than or more than six months old, appellant failed to meet the statutory and case law criteria for a consent father *(see*Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d], [e]; *Matter of Raquel Marie X.,*76 NY2d 387, 408 [1990], *cert denied sub nom. Robert C. v Miguel T,*498 US 984 [1990]). Concur—Tom, J.E, Friedman, Sullivan and McGuire, JJ.
Exhibit 31.1














CERTIFICATION






I, Gary Kouletas, certify that:




1.      I have reviewed this quarterly report of Form 10-Q of Hybred International, Inc.




2.
Based on my knowledge, 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 misleading with 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 the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report.




4.
I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and I have:




a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, is made known to me by others within the company, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared; and




b) Designed such internal control over financial reporting, or caused such internal control over financial reporting to be designed under our supervision, to provide reasonable assurance regarding the reliability of financial reporting and the preparation of financial statements fort external purposes in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles; and




c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this Report based upon such evaluation; and





d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.




5.
I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant’s auditors and the Registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);




a) All significant 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 any material 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.






Date: ...................., 2011


/s/ Gary Kouletas


Gary Kouletas


President (Principal Executive Officer)