alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 10350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-3776]



[[Page 10350]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service


Modem Speeds for Electronic Filing

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This announcement serves as a follow-up to the August 2000 
notice (65 FR 49292, August 11, 2000) which stated that the Internal 
Revenue Service is exploring the feasibility of eliminating modem 
speeds under 28.8Kbps for Electronic Filing. An inquiry regarding modem 
speeds used by our trading partners was also published on the Digital 
Daily and Electronic Filing System Bulletin Board.
    The feedback we received indicates that establishing higher file 
transfer speed requirements at this time would result in a negative 
impact on some of our trading partners. Therefore, for the 2001 filing 
season ETA has decided not to change the requirements for transmitting 
returns to the IRS e-file system.
    ETA would like to thank everyone who responded to our request for 
modem speed information. We will continue to explore this issue in 
preparation for the 2002 filing season.

ADDRESSES: Questions or concerns should be directed to Dapheny McCray, 
Program Analyst, IRS, Electronic Tax Administration, W:E:IEF:IB, 5000 
Ellin Road, Room C4-188, Lanham, MD 20706.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Questions or concerns will also be 
taken over the telephone. Call 202-283-0685 (not a toll-free number) or 
via email to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#175376677f79726e395a745465766e577e656439707861"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c084a1b0a8aea5b9ee8da383b2a1b980a9b2b3eea7afb6">[email protected]</span></a>

    Approved:
Kathleen Upton,
Acting Director, Individual Electronic Filing Division, Electronic Tax 
Administration.
[FR Doc. 01-3776 Filed 2-13-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1998
<CASH>                                             432
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    32981
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1400
<INVENTORY>                                      57967
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 92201
<PP&E>                                           62661
<DEPRECIATION>                                   23912
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  172456
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            29312
<BONDS>                                          81507
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             1
<OTHER-SE>                                       55472
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    172456
<SALES>                                         217694
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                217694
<CGS>                                           130820
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   197792
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   444
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                9609
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  10737
<INCOME-TAX>                                      4687
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6050
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6050
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  6050.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  6050.00
        

</TABLE>
The HONORABLE GARY A. FENNER, United States District Judge for the *

Western District of Missouri, sitting by designation.

The HONORABLE MICHAEL J. DAVIS, United States District Judge for the 1

District of Minnesota.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 96-4186

___________

United States of America, *

*

Plaintiff - Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Minnesota.

Michael James Fay, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Defendant - Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: June 10, 1997

Filed: August 4, 1997

___________

Before LOKEN and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and FENNER, District Judge. *

___________

PER CURIAM.

Michael Fay was convicted of embezzling union funds. Granting his motion for

a downward departure, the district court sentenced Fay to three months in prison, six 1

months on work release, three years of supervised release, a $10,000 fine, and an
-2-

assessment for costs of confinement. Some weeks later, the probation officer advised

the court that the Bureau of Prisons cannot supervise inmates on work release. The

court then entered an amended judgment making the six-month term of work release

the first six months of Fay’s three-year term of supervised release. Accepting that

modification, Fay moved to clarify the amended judgment so that it specified when he

must pay the assessed costs of confinement. The court entered a second amended

judgment containing that clarification.

After serving three months in prison, Fay began his term of supervised release.

During the first six months -- the work release period -- he violated the conditions of

supervised release by lying to his probation officer and submitting forged documents

to his new employer. After a violations hearing, the district court revoked supervised

release and sentenced Fay to two years in prison plus completion of his term of

supervised release and payment of the original fine. On appeal, Fay argues for the first

time that the amended judgment violated Rule 43 of the Federal Rules of Criminal

Procedure because he was not present “at the imposition of sentence.” Therefore, Fay

reasons, the violations occurred during work release under the original judgment, not

during supervised release under the invalid amended judgment, so the district court only

had authority to imprison him for the remainder of the six-month work release term.

We conclude that this issue was not properly preserved. Accordingly, the judgment of

the district court is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.
Exhibit 32.2



Section 1350 Certifications



Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Strategic Diagnostics Inc.
(the Company) hereby certifies, to such officers knowledge, that:



| | (i) | the accompanying Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the period ended December 31, 2004 (the Report) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or after the date
hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.



|                     |  |     |  |                                                                        
|-------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------
|Date: March 30, 2005 |  | By: |  | /s/    ANTHONY J.
SIMONETTA                                            
|                     |  |     |  | Anthony J. Simonetta Vice PresidentFinance and Chief Financial Officer
TONY M. MIMS,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA,

Appellee.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D17-2208

_____________________________/

Opinion filed September 7, 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County.

Mark W. Moseley, Judge.

Tony M. Mims, pro se, Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Trisha Meggs Pate, Bureau ChiefCriminal Appeals, Tallahassee, for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

DISMISSED.

ROBERTS, WETHERELL, and ROWE, JJ., CONCUR.
#### GRAPEVINE IMPORTS, LTD., A Texas Limited Partnership, T-Tech, Inc., A Texas Corporation, As Tax Matters Partner, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 2008-5090.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 13, 2010.

Howard R. Rubin, Fatten Muchin Ro-senman LLP, William E. Copley, Sonnen-schein Nath & Rosenthal LLP, Washington, DC, M. Todd Welty, Laura L. Gavioli, Sonnenschein Nath *&*Rosenthal LLP, dal-las, TX, for Plaintiffs-Appellees.

Joan I. Oppenheimer, Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Defendant-Appellant.

ON MOTION

ORDER

Bausch *&*Lomb Incorporated moves for leave to file a brief amicus curiae in support Grapevine Imports, Ltd. The United States consents, and moves without opposition for an extension of time to file its reply brief.

Upon consideration thereof,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Bausch & Lomb’s motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae is granted.

(2) The United States’ motion for an extension of time is granted. The United States’ reply brief is due within 14 days of the date of filing of this order.
### CAUSE NO. 12-14-00155-CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

BRENDA BREWER, DEANNA

MEADOR, PENNY ADAMS,

SABRA CURRY AND DEBORAH

BEANE

, APPELLANTS } APPEALED FROM 3RD

V. } DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR

LOWE'S HOME CENTERS INC., } ANDERSON COUNTY, TEXAS

APPELLEE

ORDER FOR RELEASE OF CONTEMNOR

On December 22, 2014, following a hearing at which Reporter Ms. Helen C. Wooten was

present with her counsel, this Court found that Ms. Helen C. Wooten was in contempt of this

Court for violating its order entered on November 4, 2014. As part of the penalty assessed, Ms.

Helen C. Wooten was arrested and confined in the Smith County Jail, subject to the terms and

conditions set forth in this Court’s Judgment of Contempt dated December 22, 2014. Ms. Helen

C. Wooten’s confinement was ordered to continue until the complete record in this appeal was

presented in legible format for filing in this Court and Ms. Helen C. Wooten received

notification from the Court that the record had been accepted and filed. Those two conditions

have now been satisfied. Accordingly,

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Sheriff of Smith County, Texas, immediately

release Reporter Ms. Helen C. Wooten from confinement in the Smith County Jail.WITNESS the Honorable James T. Worthen, Chief Justice of the Court of Appeals, 12 th

Court of Appeals District of Texas, at Tyler.

GIVEN UNDER MY HAND AND SEAL OF SAID COURT

, at my office this the

29th day of December 2014

, A.D.

CATHY S. LUSK, CLERK

12 TH COURT OF APPEALS

B y:

________________________________ Katrina McClenny, Chief Deputy Clerk
Exhibit 23
                                                                      ----------

ACCOUNTANTS' CONSENT


To the Board of Directors of
GST Telecommunications, Inc.:

We consent to the  incorporation by reference in the registration  statements on
Forms F-3, S-3 and S-8 (#33-95324,  #33-97096, #333-1538, #33-94072, #333-15699,
#333-16141 and #333-07237) of GST  Telecommunications,  Inc. of our audit report
dated   December  8,  1994  on  the   consolidated   statements  of  operations,
shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the thirteen months ended September 30,
1994,  which report appears in the September 30, 1996 annual report on Form 10-K
of GST Telecommunications, Inc.



Chartered Accountants

Vancouver, Canada

December 30, 1996
Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO SALE AGREEMENT


 


This
Amendment No. 1 (the “Amendment to Sale Agreement”) to the Agreement for
Sale and Assignment of Rights, dated as of December 21, 2004, by and between
ISIS Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“ISIS”) and Drug Royalty USA, Inc., (“DRC”)
(the “Sale Agreement”) is entered into as of October 14, 2007 (the “Effective
Date”), by and between ISIS and Drug Royalty Trust 3, a statutory trust
formed under the Delaware Statutory Trust Act, as successor-in-interest to DRC
(“DRT”). Except as expressly set forth herein, all capitalized terms
shall have the meaning set forth in the Sale Agreement.


 


RECITALS


 


WHEREAS,
as a result of a dispute that arose between the Parties, the Parties now desire
to amend the Sale Agreement as set forth in this Amendment No. 1 to Sale
Agreement in full and final settlement of such dispute.


 


NOW
THEREFORE, DRT and ISIS hereby agree to amend the Sale Agreement as follows:


 


1.                                     Delete Section 1.2(a)(iii) and insert in its
place the following:


 


“(iii)                         seven million US dollars (US$7,000,000) due and payable on October 15,
2007 (“Third Payment Date”).”


 


Except
as expressly amended and supplemented hereby, all other terms of the Sale
Agreement shall remain in full force and effect except that this $7,000,000 payment
shall not be subject to and/or contingent upon ISIS fulfilling its obligation
to bring the Opposition Prior Art to the attention of the European Patent
Office as required by the terms of the Sale Agreement.


 


IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Amendment No. 1 to Sale
Agreement to be executed in duplicate by their duly authorized representatives.


 


 


	
  ISIS
  PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.

  	
  DRUG
  ROYALTY CORPORATION, INC,

  AS
  MANAGER OF DRUG ROYALTY

  TRUST
  3

  



 


 


	
  BY:

  	
  /s/
  B. Lynne Parshall

  	
   

  	
  BY:

  	
  /s/
  Behzad Khosrowshahi

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  NAME:

  	
  B.
  Lynne Parshall

  	
   

  	
  NAME:

  	
  Behzad
  Khosrowshahi

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  TITLE:

  	
  EVP
  & CFO

  	
   

  	
  TITLE:

  	
  President
  & CFO
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<CIK> 0000828413
<NAME> SANITARY ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING LABS, INC.

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1997
<CASH>                                             721
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                   721
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                     721
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            35307
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                         14238
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                      399274
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                       721
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 82061
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               44817
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (126878)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (126878)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (126878)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)


</TABLE>
<PAGE>
 
                                   EXHIBIT 11

                STATEMENT RE:  COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                      YEAR ENDED JULY 31
                                                      1996          1995
                                                      ----          ----
<S>                                               <C>            <C> 
Average common shares outstanding                   3,545,147     3,545,147

Net effect of dilutive common stock 
  equivalents-based on treasury stock method              -0-        12,107
                                                  -----------    ----------
Total weighted average common and
  common equivalent shares outstanding              3,545,147     3,558,107
                                                  ===========    ==========
Loss before extraordinary gain and
  cumulative effect of accounting change          $(2,171,280)   $ (142,861)

Extraordinary gain on refinancing
  of long-term debt                               $         -    $  522,922

Cumulative effect on prior years of
  change in accounting for new 
  account allowances                              $(1,406,050)   $        -

Net income (loss)                                 $(3,577,330)   $  380,061

Per share:
  Loss before extraordinary gain and
  cumulative effect of accounting change          $     (0.61)   $    (0.04)

  Extraordinary gain                              $         -    $     0.15

  Cumulative effect of accounting change          $     (0.40)   $        -

  Net income (loss)                               $     (1.01)   $     0.11
</TABLE> 
                                   33 of 33
Exhibit 10.3(b)
  
  Re:
    
    Management Agreement Renewals
   
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Diversified Multi-Advisor Futures Fund L.P. II
    
    Orion Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Tactical Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
    
    Institutional Futures Portfolio LP
    
    CMF Willowbridge Argo Master Fund L.P.
    
    Orion Futures Fund (Cayman) Ltd.
    By:
    
    /s/ Jennifer Magro

Jennifer MagroChief Financial Officer & DirectorWILLOWBRIDGE ASSOCIATES INC.By:
    
    /s/ Stephen CranePrint Name:  Stephen CraneJM/sr
#### Gary Robert MOORE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Gregory KNOWLIN, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 10-7190.

United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.

Submitted: Jan. 13, 2011.

Decided: Jan. 19, 2011.

Gary Robert Moore, Appellant Pro Se.

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:

Gary Robert Moore seeks to appeal the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge to deny *713relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, and denying a certificate of appealability. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2006). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2006). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. *Slack v. McDaniel,*529 U.S. 473, 484, 120 S.Ct. 1595, 146 L.Ed.2d 542 (2000); *see Miller-El v. Cockrell,*537 U.S. 322, 336-38, 123 S.Ct. 1029, 154 L.Ed.2d 931 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. *Slack,*529 U.S. at 484-85, 120 S.Ct. 1595. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Moore has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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.*
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.                  

###### Nuclear Regulatory Commission

                    On February 7, 2001 (66 FR 9377), the                     **Federal Register**                     published the “Biweekly Notice of Applications and Amendments to Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations.” On page 9377, column 3, second paragraph, “January 29, 2001, through February 9, 2001” should read “January 16, 2001 through January 26, 2001.”                 

Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 9th day of February 2001.

For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. 

John A. Zwolinski, 

Director, Division of Licensing Project Management, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation.

[FR Doc. 01-3827 Filed 2-14-01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7590-01-P