alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 137 (Monday, July 20, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 35229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17144]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

Federal Railroad Administration


Rescission of Notice of Intent

SUMMARY: This notice rescinds the previous notice of intent issued on 
April 2, 2001 to prepare an environmental impact statement for a 
proposed rail corridor improvement project on the BNSF Railway main 
line between the City of Kelso and Martin's Bluff (south of Kalama, 
Washington).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dean Moberg, Area Engineer, Federal 
Highway Administration, Evergreen Plaza Building, 711 South Capitol 
Way, Suite 501, Olympia, Washington 98501, Telephone: (360) 534-9344; 
David Valenstein, Federal Railroad Administration, 1200 New Jersey 
Ave., SE., MS-20, Washington, DC 20590, Telephone: (202) 493-6368; 
Scott Witt, Washington State Department of Transportation, 310 Maple 
Park Ave., Southeast, Olympia, Washington 98504, Telephone: (360) 705-
7938.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On October 22, 1992, the U.S. Department of 
Transportation designated the existing rail corridor from Eugene, 
Oregon through Portland, Oregon and Seattle, Washington to Vancouver, 
British Columbia, Canada as a high-speed rail corridor pursuant to 
section 1010 of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 
1991 (ISTEA). As part of phase one of the long-term plan to develop 
high-speed intercity passenger service on the corridor, the Washington 
State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) proposed to improve the 
Burlington Northern Santa Fe (now BNSF) mainline between the City of 
Kelso and Martin's Bluff (south of Kalama, Washington). FHWA and FRA 
published the notice of intent to prepare an environmental impact 
statement for the Kelso-Martin's Bluff Rail Project in the Federal 
Register on April 2, 2001. When anticipated federal funding for the 
project did not become available, the 2007 Washington State Legislature 
(Legislature) instructed the WSDOT to reduce the scope of the project 
to match state funding amounts. In 2008, the Legislature moved state 
project funds to the 2013-2017 biennia. As a result of these 
legislative actions, WSDOT is no longer proposing improvement to this 
rail corridor and FHWA and FRA are rescinding the notice of intent to 
prepare an environmental impact statement.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205, 
Highway Research, Planning and Construction. The regulations 
implementing Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental 
consultation of federal programs and activities apply to this 
program)

    Issued on: May 26, 2008.
Mark E. Yachmetz,
Associate Administrator for Railroad Development, Federal Railroad 
Administration.
Dean Moberg,
Area Engineer, FHWA.
[FR Doc. E9-17144 Filed 7-17-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-RY-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

December 12, 2012

p1205

Order 

December 12, 2012

145607

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 145607

COA: 302088 

Ingham CC: 09-001367-FH 

DAVID CHUCK CROFF,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the June 26, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
EXHIBIT 99.2



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), the undersigned officer of Raybor Management Inc. (the Company), in his capacity and as of the date set forth below, does hereby certify with respect
to the Annual Report of the Company on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended February 28, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the 10-KSB Report) that to his knowledge:



| | (1) |  | the 10-KSB 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 10-KSB Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Dated: May 22,
2003



/s/ DAVID A.
YOSTDavid A. Yost Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer
EXHIBIT 32.2

CERTIFICATION OF THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO RULE 13A-14(b) OF THE EXCHANGE ACT AND 18
U.S.C. SECTION 1350.

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of Curis, Inc. (the Company) for the fiscal year
ended December 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned, Michael P. Gray, Vice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, 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.

Dated: March 31, 2006

/s/ MICHAEL P. GRAYMichael P. GrayVice President of Finance and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

                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 Annual Report of Impreso, Inc. (the "Company"), on Form
10-K for the period ending August 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Marshall D. Sorokwasz,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section
1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



Date:   November 27, 2002                    Signature: /s/ Marshall Sorokwasz
        -----------------                               -----------------------
                                                        Marshall D. Sorokwasz
                                                        Chief Executive Officer
# Union Membership (Annual)

"The Union Members release focuses on demographic and other characteristics of union members and those represented by unions.  Included in this release are union membership rates by demographic characteristic, occupation, industry, and state, as well as earnings of union members and those who are not represented by unions.  This release is issued annually.  For more information, visit the Current Population Survey union membership statistics page, www.bls.gov/cps/lfcharacteristics.htm#union."

- Union membership rate at 10.0% in 2023, little changed from 2022
- Union membership rate 10.1% in 2022, down from 10.3% in 2021
- Union membership rate 10.3% in 2021, down from 10.8% in 2020 but the same as in 2019
- Union membership declines by 321,000 in 2020; union membership rate is 10.8%
- The union membership rate is 10.3% in 2019, down from 10.5% in 2018
- The union membership rate is 10.5% in 2018, down from 10.7% in 2017
- Union membership rate, at 10.7%, is unchanged in 2017
- Union membership rate in 2016 is 10.7%, down from 11.1% in 2015
- Union membership rate in 2015 is 11.1 percent, unchanged from 2014
- Union membership rate in 2014 is 11.1 percent, down from 11.3 percent in 2013
- Union membership rate in 2013 is 11.3%, the same as in 2012
- Union membership rate in 2012 is 11.3%, down from 11.8% in 2011
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 ThermoEnergy Corporation (the "Company")
on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report"), I, Cary G.
Bullock, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to the
best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Sec. 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:
November 15, 2010





By:
                /s/ Cary G.
      BullockName:
      Cary G. BullockTitle:
      President and Chief Executive
Officer
Exhibit 99.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 1350, CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE,

AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002



Pursuant to Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United
States Code, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned, as chief financial officer of SMTC Corporation (the Company), does hereby certify that to the undersigneds knowledge:



| | 1) |  | the Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 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 Companys annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002 fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | -- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



/s/ Frank Burke





Frank Burke

Chief Financial Officer



Dated: March 27, 2003



1
3 5

Table 12. Percent distribution of employed women by occupation, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity,

2004 annual averages

 Total, 16 years and over (thousands)............................................ 52,527 7,997 2,751 7,098

 Percent................................................................................... 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Management, professional, and related occupations ............................... 38.6 30.6 43.8 22.4

Management, business, and financial operations occupations ............. 13.6 9.9 14.6 7.8

Professional and related occupations .................................................. 25.0 20.7 29.2 14.6

Service occupations ................................................................................ 18.8 27.0 18.8 30.3

Sales and office occupations ................................................................... 35.6 33.3 28.2 33.2

Sales and related occupations ............................................................. 12.4 10.6 11.5 12.3

Office and administrative support occupations ..................................... 23.2 22.7 16.7 20.9

Natural resources, construction, and maintenance occupations .............. 1.0 .9 .6 2.0

Farming, fishing, and forestry occupations ........................................... .3 .1 .3 1.2

Construction and extraction occupations .............................................. .4 .3 .1 .4

Installation, maintenance, and repair occupations ................................ .3 .5 .3 .5

Production, transportation, and material moving occupations .................. 6.0 8.2 8.6 12.2

Production occupations ........................................................................ 4.1 5.4 7.6 8.6

Transportation and material moving occupations ................................. 1.9 2.8 1.1 3.6

Occupation White

Black or 

African 

American

Hispanic or 

Latino 

ethnicity

Asian
#### RICE v. UNITED AIR LINES, Inc.

No. 26238.

United States District Court N. D. Ohio, E. D.

Feb. 28, 1950.

*162M. C. Harrison, Cleveland, Ohio, for plaintiff.

C. M. Horn, Cleveland, Ohio, for defendant.

FREED, District Judge.

Defendant objects to five of the requests for admissions made by plaintiff pursuant to Rule 36, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A. These requests concern matters which were previously the subject of interrogatories propounded by plaintiff under Rule 33. The Court ruled on the ground of irrelevancy that these interrogatories need not be answered.

Plaintiff justifies the reiteration of these questions by asserting that the test of relevancy under Rule 36 is broader, in some fashion, than the test of relevancy under Rule 33. The Court does not agree. If anything relevancy for purposes of Rule 33 should be more liberally construed, for Rule 33 recognizes inquiry into matters inadmissible in evidence while Rule 36 is intended to facilitate proof at trial. The only difference between the substance of the present requests and the earlier interrogatories is that the “innuendo” found objectionable by the Court is no longer present, and defendant quite properly assumed that the question had been put at rest by the Court’s ruling. However, the Court is now of the opinion that its earlier ruling was in error and the present objections should not be sustained.

Plaintiff seeks admission of the genuineness of answers to interrogatories propounded and a deposition taken in another lawsuit arising out of the same airplane accident involved in this case. The Court is not called on now to rule definitively that these will be allowed in evidence, for whatever may be the ordinary rule as to the admissibility of facts admitted under Rule 36. See Sulzbacher v. Travelers Insurance Co., D.C., 2 F.R.D. 491, the form in which plaintiff submits the requests reserves to defendant the right to make objection to admissibility at trial. Suffice it to say that under some circumstances a deposition in a former action is sometimes admissible as original testimony, InsulWool Insulation Corp. v. Home Insulation, 10 Cir., 176 F.2d 502; Mid-City Bank & Trust Co. v. Reading Co.,1 or is admissible for purposes of impeachment in the event *163deponent testifies at trial. The admissibility of the answers to the interrogatories in the previous action will be determined by the rules governing the admissibility of admissions of a party.

No burden on or prejudice to the defendant will result from requiring it to answer the requests for admissions subject to the right to make all pertinent objections at trial, whereas plaintiff will be prejudiced if the items in question are ruled admissible on trial and he has no expeditious way to prove them.

The obj ections will be overruled.

*

1

 No opinion for publication.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7224

LORENZO V. CARRILLO,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District

Judge. (CA-97-37-2)

Submitted: November 18, 1997 Decided: December 2, 1997

Before ERVIN, MURNAGHAN, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lorenzo V. Carrillo, Appellant Pro Se. John Kenneth Byrum, Jr.,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on

his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp.

1997). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. Carrillo v. Angelone, No. CA-97-37-2 (E.D. Va. Aug. 21,

1997). 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.

DISMISSED
EXHIBIT 23.3








INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT





We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-150101, 333-161218 and 333-172902 on Form S-3ASR and Registration Statement Nos. 333-76288, 333-139108, 333-129454, 333-03303, 333-03289, 333-88372, 333-121371, 333-125010, 333-141282, 333-156243, 333-159361, 333-159362 and 333-168797 on Form S-8 of our report dated February 25, 2011, relating to the consolidated financial statements of Optim Energy, LLC and subsidiaries, appearing in this Amendment No. 1 of the Annual Report on Form 10-K of PNM Resources, Inc. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31, 2010.





/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP





Dallas, Texas


March 30, 2011
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-30-2001
<PERIOD-START>                             MAY-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-2000
<CASH>                                         864,663
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                2,847,794
<ALLOWANCES>                                  (61,068)
<INVENTORY>                                  2,286,899
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             6,076,687
<PP&E>                                       5,300,993
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,560,736)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              11,308,823
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,056,198
<BONDS>                                      1,221,994
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,629
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,638,270
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                11,308,823
<SALES>                                      9,634,236
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             9,670,601
<CGS>                                        6,485,981
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                8,353,135
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,152
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              74,143
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              1,233,171
<INCOME-TAX>                                   479,443
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            753,727
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   753,727
<EPS-BASIC>                                        .23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .23


</TABLE>
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Patricio Flores TOSCANO, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 12-40219

Conference Calendar.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 17, 2012.

Renata Ann Gowie, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Houston, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

Marjorie A. Meyers, Federal Public Defender, Federal Public Defender’s Office, Houston, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

Before DAVIS, OWEN, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

The Federal Public Defender appointed to represent Patricio Flores Toscano has moved for leave to withdraw and has filed a brief in accordance with *Anders v. California,*386 U.S. 738, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), and *United States v. Flores,*632 F.3d 229 (5th Cir.2011). Flores Toscano has not filed a response. We have reviewed counsel’s brief and the relevant portions of the record reflected therein. We concur with counsel’s as*340sessment that the appeal presents no nonfrivolous issue for appellate review. Accordingly, counsel’s motion for leave to ■withdraw is GRANTED, counsel is excused from further responsibilities herein, and the APPEAL IS DISMISSED. *See*5th Cir. R. 42.2.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
Exhibit 10.1

            Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
Form S-8 (Registration No. 333-12586, 333-13786, 333-14142, 333-83914,
333-104070 and 333-121229) of our report dated February 7, 2005, with respect to
the consolidated financial statements of Alvarion Ltd. included in this annual
report on Form 20-F for year ended December 31, 2004.


                                               /s/ KOST, FORER GABBAY & KASIERER
                                               ---------------------------------
                                               A Member of Ernst & Young Global

Tel-Aviv, Israel

20 June, 2005