alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 45 (Wednesday, March 7, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13783-13784]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-5562]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Federal Bureau of Investigation


Notice of Charter Renewal

    In accordance with the provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee 
Act (Title 5, United States Code, Appendix 2), and Title 41, Code of 
Federal Regulations, Section 101-6.1015, the Director, FBI, with the 
concurrence of the Attorney General, has determined that the 
continuance of the Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) 
Advisory Policy Board (APB) is in the public interest, in connection 
with the performance of duties imposed upon the FBI by law, and hereby 
gives notice of the renewal of its charter, effective January 4, 2001.
    The APB recommends to the Director, FBI, general policy with 
respect to the philosophy, concept, and operational principles of the 
various criminal justice information systems managed by the FBI's CJIS 
Division.
    The APB includes representatives from state and local criminal 
justice agencies; members of the judicial, prosecutorial, and 
correctional segments of the criminal justice community; a 
representative of federal agencies participating in the CJIS systems; 
and representatives of criminal justice professional associations 
(i.e., the American Probation and Parole Association American Society 
of Crime Laboratory Directors, International Association of Chiefs of 
Police, National District Attorneys Association, National

[[Page 13784]]

Sheriffs' Association, Major Cities Chiefs Association, Major County 
Sheriffs' Association, and a representative from a national 
professional association representing the courts or court 
administrators nominated by the Conference of Chief Justices). All 
members of the APB are appointed by the FBI Director.
    The APB functions solely as an advisory body in compliance with the 
provisions of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The charter has been 
filed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

    Dated: February 20, 2001.
Louis J. Freeh,
Director.
[FR Doc. 01-5562 Filed 3-6-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-02-M
REPORT
ON ASSESSMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH


§1122(d)(2)(vi),
§1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii)


of
REGULATION AB SERVICING CRITERIA


FOR
THE REPORTING PERIOD


JANUARY
1, 2007 TO DECEMBER 31, 2007








American
Security Insurance Company, Standard Guaranty Insurance Company and TrackSure
Insurance Agency, Inc. (formerly, "Safeco Financial Institution Solutions,
Inc.") (collectively, the "Asserting Party") is responsible for assessing
compliance for the period of January 1, 2007 through December 31, 2007 (the
"Reporting Period") with the servicing criteria set forth in §1122(d)(2)(vi),
§1122(d)(4)(xi) and §1122(d)(4)(xii) of Title 17, §229.1122(d) of the Code of
Federal Regulations, (the "Applicable Servicing Criteria") which the Asserting
Party has concluded are applicable to the insurance escrow servicing activities
it performs with respect to all mortgage backed securities transactions that
were registered after January 1, 2006 with the Securities and Exchange
Commission pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933 (the "Platform Transactions").
The Asserting Party used the criteria set forth in paragraph (d) of Item 1122 of
Regulation AB to assess the compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria.


The
Asserting Party has assessed its compliance with the Applicable Servicing
Criteria for the Reporting Period and has identified a material instance of
noncompliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria. Specifically, the
Asserting Party did not have, during the Reporting Period, sufficient policies
and procedures to capture the information with respect to the Platform
Transactions necessary to determine compliance with
§1122(d)(4)(xii).


The
Asserting Party has concluded that, with the exception of the aforementioned
material instance of noncompliance, the Asserting Party has complied, in all
material respects, with the Applicable Servicing Criteria for the Reporting
Period with respect to the Platform Transactions.


PricewaterhouseCoopers
LLP, an independent registered public accounting firm, has issued an attestation
report on the assessment of compliance with the Applicable Servicing Criteria as
of and for the Reporting Period.


American Security Insurance
Company
 Standard Guaranty Insurance
Company
 TrackSure InsuranceAgency,Inc.


(formerly,
"Safeco Financial Institution Solutions, Inc.")





/s/ John
Frosobe





By:  John
Frobose


Senior
Vice President





Date:  February
19, 2008
  C:\WINNT\TEMP\notesEA312D\2007RegABAssessment(EC)(L).doc
##### 



Exhibit 15.1 Awareness Letter of Independent Accountants November  4, 2004 Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549 Commissioners: We are aware that our report dated November 3, 2004 on our review of interim
financial information of Southwest Bancorporation of Texas, Inc. for the three
and nine month periods ended September 30, 2004 and 2003 and included in the
Companys quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 30,
2004 is incorporated by reference in its Registration Statement on Form S-8
(File Nos. 333-76269, 333-21619, 333-55685, 333-33533, 333-27891, 333-60190,
333-74452, 333-87630, 333-36092, 333-120196 and 333-120197). Very truly yours, /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**




**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)**




In
      connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Pressure BioSciences,
      Inc., a Massachusetts corporation (the “Company”) for the period ended June 30,
      2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
      (the “Report”), I, Richard T. Schumacher, President and Chief Executive Officer
      of the Company, do hereby certify, 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) that:





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




Dated:
                August 11, 2006
            */s/
                Richard T. Schumacher*Richard
                T. SchumacherPresident
                & Chief Executive Officer(Principal
                Executive Officer)





A
      signed
      original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
      to
      Pressure BioSciences, Inc. and will be retained by Pressure BioSciences, Inc.
      and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon
      request.
<PAGE>
 
                           STORAGE DIMENSIONS, INC.


                                   FORM 10-Q


                                  EXHIBIT 11.1

                   COMPUTATION OF NET INCOME (LOSS) PER SHARE

                    (IN THOUSANDS, EXCEPT PER SHARE AMOUNTS)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                           THREE MONTHS                NINE MONTHS
                                                                               ENDED                      ENDED
                                                                           SEPTEMBER 30,              SEPTEMBER 30,
                                                                     -------------------------  -------------------------
                                                                         1997         1996          1997         1996
                                                                     ------------  -----------  ------------  -----------
<S>                                                                  <C>           <C>          <C>           <C>
Net income (loss) per share                                               $ (892)       $  550      $(1,372)       $  940
Shares used in calculating net income (loss) per share:
  Weighted average common shares outstanding                               7,873         1,674        6,194         1,630
  Common equivalent shares pursuant to Staff Accounting
     Bulletin No. 83 (1)                                                      --         3,888        1,221         3,888
                                                                          ------        ------      -------        ------
  Weighted average common and common equivalent shares outstanding
   (2)                                                                     7,873         5,562        7,415         5,518
                                                                          ======        ======      =======        ======
Net income (loss) per share                                               $(0.11)       $ 0.10      $ (0.19)       $ 0.17
                                                                          ======        ======      =======        ======
</TABLE>


(1) Preferred Stock on an as-if converted basis and stock options and warrants
    granted from January 22, 1996 to March 11, 1997 (using the treasury stock
    method) are treated as outstanding through March 11, 1997 for all periods
    presented prior to or inclusive of the March 11, 1997 Offering effective
    date.


(2) For the three months ended September 30, 1997, common equivalent shares are
    not included in the computation of net income (loss) per shares due to the
    anti-dilutive effect.
Presidential Documents

12841

Federal Register

Vol. 66, No. 40

Wednesday, February 28, 2001

Title 3—

The President

Notice of February 27, 2001

Continuation of the National Emergency Relating to Cuba

and of the Emergency Authority Relating to the Regulation

of the Anchorage and Movement of Vessels

On March 1, 1996, by Proclamation 6867, President Clinton declared a

national emergency to address the disturbance or threatened disturbance

of international relations caused by the February 24, 1996, destruction by

the Government of Cuba of two unarmed U.S.-registered civilian aircraft

in international air space north of Cuba. In July 1996 and on subsequent

occasions, the Government of Cuba stated its intent to forcefully defend

its sovereignty against any U.S.-registered vessels or aircraft that might enter

Cuban territorial waters or airspace while involved in a memorial flotilla

and peaceful protest. Since these events, the Government of Cuba has not

demonstrated that it will refrain from the future use of reckless and excessive

force against U.S. vessels or aircraft that may engage in memorial activities

or peaceful protest north of Cuba. Therefore, in accordance with section

202(d) of the National Emergencies Act (50 U.S.C. 1622(d)), I am continuing

the national emergency with respect to Cuba and the emergency authority

relating to the regulation of the anchorage and movement of vessels set

out in Proclamation 6867.

This notice shall be published in the Federal Register and transmitted

to the Congress.

[FR Doc. 01–5067

Filed 2–27–01; 11:08 am]

Billing code 3195–01–P

THE WHITE HOUSE,

February 27, 2001.

W
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 Annual Report of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the year ended December 31,
2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven Barnhart, 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:



|August 27, 2008 |  | /s/STEVEN BARNHARTSteven Barnhart President, Chief Executive Officer and
Director
|--------------- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---



QuickLinks
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Adrian Dumit, Appellant.

[26 NYS3d 15]—

*511Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Ronald A. Zweibel, J., at suppression hearing; Charles H. Solomon, J., at plea and sentencing), rendered April 9, 2014, convicting defendant of criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree, and sentencing him to a term of 3V2 years, unanimously affirmed.

The court properly denied defendant’s suppression motion. The suppression issue turns on the legality of the initial police contact with a car in which defendant was riding, after which the police made observations that ultimately led to the recovery of a weapon. The record supports the court’s finding that, based on the totality of the factors discussed in *People v Ocasio*(85 NY2d 982 [1995]), the encounter was a nonforcible approach to an already-stopped car, rather than a seizure *(see also People v Bora,*83 NY2d 531 [1994]), and thus it required only an objective, credible reason, for which there was ample basis. The police observed two cars, one of which contained defendant. The cars were described in a 911 call, and were clearly traveling together as predicted by the caller. The caller reported that men in the two cars had been “taking out guns.” The caller supplied his first name, and the 911 system recorded the caller’s phone number, which facilitated a callback. In any event, to the extent the reasonable suspicion standard applies, based on the foregoing facts, the officers had reasonable suspicion as well (see *Prado Navarette v California,*572 US —, 134 S Ct 1683 [2014]; *People v Argyris,*24 NY3d 1138 [2014]).

We find no basis for a reduction of the five-year term of post-release supervision.

Concur — Tom, J.R, Acosta, Moskowitz and Gische, JJ.
EXHIBIT 32.1 Certification of Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 (Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002)   I, Robert Ipson, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Accounting Officer, of Piranha Ventures, Inc. (the "Registrant") do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge, based upon a review of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period March 31, 2010 of the Registrant, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"):  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Registrant.  Dated:  May 5, 2010 By:  /s/ Robert Ipson  Robert Ipson  Chief Executive Officer, Principal Accounting Officer  * A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Piranha Ventures, Inc. and will be retained by Piranha Ventures, Inc. and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
Exhibit 32.2





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


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





In connection with the Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Orbitz Worldwide, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Russell Hammer, Senior Vice President and Chief Financial 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:





|   |                                                                                                                      
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|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.




March 20, 2012/s/ Russell HammerRussell HammerSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
#### Lamont Gentry FALLS, Appellant, v. Dwight L. FONDREN, Appellee.

No. 10-2679.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: March 7, 2011.

Filed: March 8, 2011.

*937Lamont Gentry Falls, Lompoc, CA, pro se.

Chad A. Blumenfield, Gregory G. Brook-er, Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Minneapolis, MN, for Appellee.

Before MELLOY, GRUENDER, and BENTON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

Federal inmate Lamont Gentry Falls appeals from the district court’s1 denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged disciplinary proceedings that ultimately resulted in, among other things, a loss of good conduct time. Upon careful de novo review, *see Mitchell v. U.S. Parole Comm’n,*538 F.3d 948, 951 (8th Cir.2008) (per curiam), we agree with the district court that Falls was adequately afforded due process in the disciplinary proceedings, and we agree with the conclusion that the disciplinary decision was supported by the evidence. *See, e.g., Superintendent v. Hill,*472 U.S. 445, 455-56, 105 S.Ct. 2768, 86 L.Ed.2d 356 (1985) (requirements of due process are satisfied if “some evidence” supports disciplinary decision to revoke good time credits).2

Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. *See*8th Cir. R. 47B.

1

. The Honorable James M. Rosenbaum, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota, adopting the report and recommendations of the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Minnesota.

2

. We decline to consider Falls's newly raised claim regarding evidence allegedly withheld from him. *See Stone v. Harry,*364 F.3d 912, 914 (8th Cir.2004) (claims not presented in district court may not be advanced for first time on appeal).
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-541
In Re: THOMAS KARL KEENAN, Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. (CA-92-487-A) Submitted: September 20, 1996 Decided: October 1, 1996 Before NIEMEYER, HAMILTON, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. Thomas Karl Keenan, Petitioner Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Thomas Karl Keenan brought this mandamus petition seeking an order compelling the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia to act on Keenan's motion to reconsider the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (1994) motion. Because we note that the district court denied the motion for reconsideration during the pendency of this petition, we conclude that Keenan's petition is moot. To the extent that Keenan seeks to challenge the correctness of the district court's original order denying the 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion, a petition for mandamus is not a substitute for a direct appeal. In re U nited Steelworkers , 595 F.2d 958, 960 (4th Cir. 1979). Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, but deny the petition for a writ of mandamus. 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.

PETITION DENIED
Exhibit 99.1
                                                      Page 1 of 1 
                         CTG RESOURCES, INC.
                    Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q
                            Exhibit Index

                     Quarter Ended March 31, 1999

                                                       Document
       Item                 Description              Description
   ------------             -----------              ------------

   99(1)       Exhibit Index                            Ex-99.1

   10(131)     Fifth Amendment to the Connecticut       Ex-10.131
               Natural Gas Corporation Officers'
               Retirement Plan and Deferred
               Compensation Plan Trust Agreement

   10(132)     Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation      Ex-10.132
               Deferred Compensation Plan

   10(133)     First Amendment to Connecticut           Ex-10.133
               Natural Gas Corporation Deferred
               Compensation Plan

   10(134)     Connecticut Natural Gas Corporation      Ex-10.134
               Deferred Compensation Plan Trust
               Agreement
   10(135)     First Amendment to Connecticut           Ex-10.135
               Natural Gas Corporation Deferred
               Compensation Trust Agreement

   27          Financial Data Schedule                  Ex-27
    
    <PAGE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 09-1812

WAYNE L. DAVIS, 

 Plaintiff – Appellant, 

 v. 

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PERSONNEL; RACHEL O'DWYER FLYNN; ART 

DAHLBERG; FARRAL HENDERSON; BONNIE FRIEDMAN; ROY W. EIDEM; 

ALAN W. MCMAHAM; DYETT ELLIS; MICHELLE COWARD; KEISHA 

STEPHENSON; DWIGHT C. JONES, Mayor, City of Richmond; 

TIMOTHY KAINE, Governor; WILLIAM C. SHELTON, State Director, 

the Jackson Center; NORMAN B. SALES, Richmond City Attorney; 

GREGORY A. LUKANUSKI, Assistant Attorney, Office of the City 

Attorney; BILL MIMS, Attorney General, 

 Defendants – Appellees. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior 

District Judge. (3:09-cv-00133-REP) 

Submitted: November 9, 2009 Decided: December 22, 2009 

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KING, Circuit Judges. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Wayne L. Davis, Appellant Pro Se. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Wayne L. Davis seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing his complaint without prejudice. This court 

may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291 (2006), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 

28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2006); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. 

Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order 

Davis seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable 

interlocutory or collateral order. See Domino Sugar Corp. 

v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1067 (4th Cir. 

1993). 

Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal for lack of 

jurisdiction. We deny Davis’s motion to reconsider our previous 

order denying his motion for stay pending 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