alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
-  Home 
-  Incident Reporting 

# In This Section

                      -  Hazardous Materials Incident Reporting Overview 
                      -  Report an Incident Online- Hazardous Materials 
                      -  Report an Incident Online- Pipeline 
                      -  Pipeline Operator Report Forms and Instructions 

# 2023 Gas property Damage Reporting Threshold Inflation Adjustment

2023-Gas-property-Damage-Reporting-Threshold-Inflation-Adjustment.pdf (162.75 KB)

Gas property Damage Reporting Threshold Inflation Adjustment PDF

*DOT is committed to ensuring that information is available in appropriate alternative formats to meet the requirements of persons who have a disability. If you require an alternative version of files provided on this page, please contact          PHMSA-Accessibility@dot.gov.*
**EXHIBIT
      21**








**SUBSIDIARIES
      OF THE REGISTRANT**





(1)
      AIQ,
      Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc., a Minnesota
      corporation.





(2)
      Red
      Wing Business Systems, Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc.,
      a
      Minnesota corporation.





(3)
      Champion Business Systems, Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals
      Inc., a Colorado corporation.





(4)
      FMS
      Marketing, Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc., an Illinois
      corporation.





(5)
      Active Hawk Minerals LLC, 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc.,
      Minnesota limited liability company.




(6)
      Wits-South America, Ltd., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc.,
      a
      Minnesota corporation.





(7)
      Gregory Gold Producers, Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc.,
      a
      Colorado corporation.





(8)
      Wits-China Acquisition Corp. Inc., 100% owned by Wits Basin Precious Minerals
      Inc., a Minnesota corporation
# C_2007082EN.01000901.xml

| 14.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 82/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 82/9

---

Order of the Court of 8 December 2006 — Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Commission of the European Communities, Council of the European Union

(Case C-368/05 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Council decision determining the Community's position - Decision of the EEA Joint Committee permitting the Kingdom of Norway to apply more stringent specific concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community)

(2007/C 82/16)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Applicant: Polyelectrolyte Producers Group (represented by: K. Van Maldegem and C. Mereu, avocats)

Applicant:

Other parties to the proceedings: Council of the European Union (represented by: G. Curmi, J.-P. Hix and F. Florindo Gijón), Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Forman and M. Wilderspin, Agents)

Other parties to the proceedings:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Court of First Instance (Second Chamber) of 22 July 2005 in Case T-376/04 Polyelectrolyte Producers Group v Council and Commission, which declared inadmissible an action for, first, annulment of Decision of the EEA Joint Committee No 59/2004 of 26 April 2004 amending Annex II to the EEA Agreement (OJ 2004 L 277, p. 30) permitting Norway to apply more stringent concentration limits for acrylamide than those applicable in the Community, and also a declaration that the joint statement relating to the EEA Agreement regarding the review clauses in the field of dangerous substances, adopted at the meeting of the Joint Committee on 26 March 1999 (OJ 1999 C 185, p. 6), is unlawful and, second, an action for damages to obtain compensation for the loss allegedly suffered by the applicant following the adoption of the contested decision.

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group

Council and Commission

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Polyelectrolyte Producers Group is ordered to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Polyelectrolyte Producers Group is ordered to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 10, 14.1.2006.

1

---
### §1016. Repealed and Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section (except subsec. (h)), acts May 12, 1933, ch. 25, title II, §32, 48 Stat. 48; June 16, 1933, ch. 98, title VIII, §80(a), 48 Stat. 273; Jan. 31, 1934, ch. 7, §§9, 10, 48 Stat. 347; June 11, 1934, ch. 446, 48 Stat. 929; May 28, 1935, ch. 150, §32, 49 Stat. 300; June 3, 1935, ch. 164, §2, 49 Stat. 313; July 22, 1937, ch. 516, §2, 50 Stat. 521; Aug. 19, 1937, ch. 704, §§13, 14, 50 Stat. 708; June 16, 1938, ch. 462, §2, 52 Stat. 709; Feb. 1, 1940, ch. 19, 54 Stat. 19; June 29, 1940, ch. 441, §1, 54 Stat. 684; June 3, 1942, ch. 321, 56 Stat. 306; June 27, 1942, ch. 449, §2, 56 Stat. 392; June 26, 1943, ch. 146, 57 Stat. 196; June 30, 1944, ch. 329, 58 Stat. 646; June 30, 1945, ch. 204, §§11–13, 59 Stat. 269; July 12, 1946, ch. 570, §1, 60 Stat. 532; June 30, 1947, ch. 166, title II, §206(h), 61 Stat. 208; Aug. 18, 1959, Pub. L. 86–168, title I, §104(h), 73 Stat. 387; Oct. 4, 1961, Pub. L. 87–353, §3(b), 75 Stat. 773, related to general provisions governing loans to farmers by Land Bank Commission, prior to repeal by Pub. L. 87–353, §3(b), Oct. 4, 1961, 75 Stat. 773.

Subsec. (h) provided: "Any instrument heretofore or hereafter executed on behalf of the Land Bank Commissioner and/or the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation by a Federal land bank, through its duly authorized officers, shall be conclusively presumed to have been duly authorized by the Land Bank Commissioner and the Federal Farm Mortgage Corporation."
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 03-6611

LARRY L. BUSH, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus JACK KAVANAUGH, Commissioner; RONALD HUTCHINSON, Warden; SEWALL B. SMITH, Warden; BERNARD FORD, Captain; JAKE SUTTON, Sergeant; R. EULISS, Captain, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge. (CA-02- 3780-AMD) Submitted: July 16, 2003 Decided: August 12, 2003 Before LUTTIG, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Larry L. Bush, Appellant Pro Se. John Joseph Curran, Jr., Attorney General, Stephanie Judith Lane Weber, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Larry L. Bush seeks to appeal an order denying the motion for recusal of the district judge. This court may exercise jurisdiction only over final orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1291 (2000), and certain interlocutory and collateral orders, 28 U.S.C. § 1292 (2000); Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b); Cohen v. Beneficial Indus. Loan Corp. , 337 U.S. 541 (1949). The order Bush seeks to appeal is neither a final order nor an appealable interlocutory or collateral order. Accordingly, we deny the motions f or preparation of transcript at government expense and dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. 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 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 Link Plus Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31, 2004, as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Robert L. Jones, Jr., Chairman/CEO, certify,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, that:

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

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly represents, in all
    material aspects, the financial condition and result of
    operations on the Company.



/Robert L. Jones/
---------------------------------
Robert L. Jones, Chairman/CEO



<PAGE>
II

106TH CONGRESS

1ST SESSION S. 1190

To apply the Consumer Product Safety Act to firearms and ammunition.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JUNE 9, 1999

Mr. REED introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to

the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation

A BILL

To apply the Consumer Product Safety Act to firearms and

ammunition.

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 SECTION 1. APPLICABILITY OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFE4 TY ACT TO FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION.

5 (a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following find6 ings:

7 (1) Firearms are one of the few consumer prod8 ucts not subject to consumer product safety regula9 tions.

10 (2) There are currently no quality and safety

11 standards in place for domestically manufactured
2

•S 1190 IS

1 firearms. In contrast, minimal quality and safety

2 standards have been applied to imported firearms

3 since passage of the Gun Control Act of 1968.

4 (3) As a result, firearms made in the United

5 States often lack even the most basic safety features

6 designed to prevent unintentional shooting by chil7 dren.

8 (4) In 1996 alone, 1,134 people were killed in

9 the United States by accidental firearm discharges,

10 including 376 people aged 19 years and under. In

11 addition, 162 children aged 14 years and under com12 mitted suicide using a firearm.

13 (b) PURPOSE.—The purpose of this section is to re14 duce the number of unintentional shootings in the United

15 States each year, especially among children, by permitting

16 the Consumer Product Safety Commission to regulate fire17 arms and ammunition so as to develop uniform safety

18 standards and protect the public against unreasonable

19 risks of injury from firearms and ammunition.

20 (c) APPLICABILITY OF CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY

21 ACT.—Section 3(a)(1) of the Consumer Product Safety

22 Act (15 U.S.C. 2052(a)(1)) is amended by striking sub23 paragraph (E).

Æ
Exhibit 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION

I, Barry W. Tackett, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report of Consolidated Energy, Inc. for the
period ending March 31, 2004;

2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small
business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I are responsible
for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business
issuer and 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 small business issuer,
including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within
those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;
 (b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer'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 on such evaluation; and
 (c) disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small
business issuer's most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer's
fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially
affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business
issuer's internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,
based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial
reporting, to the small business issuer's auditors and the audit committee of
the small business issuer's board of directors (or persons performing the
equivalent functions):
 (a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the small business issuer's ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; and
 (b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer's internal
control over financial reporting.

Date: May 21, 2004

/s/Barry W. Tackett
Barry W. Tackett, CFO (Principal Financial Officer)
#### Baker v. Baker.

(Decided Jan. 18, 1938.)

NAPIER & NAPIER for appellant.

C. A. NOBLE for appellee.

Opinion op the Court by

Judge Clay

— Reversing.

Malvery Baker sued her husband, Floyd D. Baker, for a divorce and alimony, and the custody of their two infant children. He filed an answer and counterclaim denying the allegations of the petition, and seeking a *736divorce from her. The chancellor adjudged that Mrs. Baker was not entitled to a divorce, but gave the divorce to her husband. The wife appeals from that part of the judgment denying her alimony, and the husband prosecutes a cross-appeal from that part of the judgment giving the wife the custody of the children and requiring the husband to pay her $50 a month for their support.

It is conceded that, since the rendition of the judgment, the wife has voluntarily surrendered the custody of the children to her husband. That being true, the case on the cross-appeal is moot, and it will not be necessary to consider the propriety of that part of the judgment from which the cross-appeal is prosecuted.

Some time before the institution of the action the parties separated, and the chancellor denied the wife a divorce on the ground that she failed to show that the separation was without fault on her part. It would serve no good purpose to detail the evidence. It has "been carefully considered and presents an unusual sit-nation. It seems to us that, if the wife’s main charge be entirely disregarded on the ground that it has not "been sufficiently proved, the husband’s attitude toward his wife, as revealed by his own evidence, showed such an utter lack of consideration for a high-strung, nervous, and delicate woman that it may be safely said that any fault on her part was but the natural result of the treatment she received from him. In view of this situation, we are constrained to hold that her conduct was not such as would deprive her of alimony, and that the court should have awarded her alimony at the rate of $20 a month.

Judgment reversed, and cause remanded with directions to enter judgment in conformity with this opinion.
# C_2007095EN.01005102.xml

| 28.4.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/51 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

28.4.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/51

---

Action brought on 2 March 2007 — Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol v OHIM — (‘250’)

(Case T-65/07)

(2007/C 95/103)

Language of the case: Polish

Parties

Applicant: Agencja Wydawnicza Technopol, Sp. z o. o. (Częstochowa, Republic of Poland) (represented by: D. Rzążewska, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM)

Defendant:

Form of order sought

| — | set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 21 December 2006 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1034/2006-4; |
| --- | --- |

—

set aside in its entirety the decision delivered on 21 December 2006 by the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) in Case No R 1034/2006-4;

| — | order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the defendant to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Community trade mark concerned: word mark ‘250 ’for goods in Class 16

Community trade mark concerned:

Decision of the Examiner: registration refused

Decision of the Examiner:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: appeal dismissed

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: incorrect application of the provisions of Article 7(1)(b) and (c) of Regulation No 40/94 on the Community trade mark (1), inasmuch as, according to the applicant, the designation ‘250’, in relation to the goods indicated, is neither descriptive nor devoid of distinctive character.

Pleas in law:

1

---

(1)  Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 (OJ 1994 L 11, p. 1).

1

---
#### William Carter, Appellant, v. Builders Construction Company and Others, Impleaded with Italian Swiss Colony, Respondent.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.- No opinion.
EXHIBIT
23.1





CONSENT
OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM





We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form
S-3 (No.’s 333-68088 and 333-90532) and Form S-8 (No.’s 333-68166, 333-105031,
333-110590, 333-131268 and 333-137616) of Wits Basin Precious Minerals Inc., and
subsidiaries of our report dated April 15, 2010, relating to the financial
statements, which appears on page F-2 of this annual report on Form
10-K.




/s/
Moquist Thorvilson Kaufmann Kennedy & Pieper LLC





Minneapolis,
Minnesota


April 15,
2010
#### Lux et al. *v.*I. J. Cooper Rubber Company.

[No. 12,207.

Filed October 29, 1925.]

From Marion Superior Court (A 22,493); *Theophilus J. Moll,*Judge.

Action by the I. J. Cooper Rubber Company against N. J. Lux and others. From a judgment for plaintiff, the defendants appeal. *Affirmed.*By the court in banc.

*Edivard W. Little*and *Earl W. Little, for*appellants.

*Keteham, McTurnan & Higgins,*for appellee.

Per Curiam.

Action by appellee to recover damages for the alleged breach of a contract in the form of a lease on certain real estate owned by appellee. Appellants by cross-complaint attempted to recover damages for negligence in creating gas fumes and smoke on the premises adjoining that occupied by appellants, and for breach of contract by the pollution of the air around the room occupied by appellants thereby causing it to become uninhabitable.

An answer in denial and a second paragraph of answer and cross-complaint were filed by appellants and appellee filed an answer in denial to the cross-complaint.

There was a trial by jury which returned a verdict for appellee in the sum of $419.35, together with answers to the interrogatories submitted by the court.

Error relied upon for reversal is that the court erred in overruling appellants’ motion for a new trial, under which appellants first contend that the court erred in overruling their motion for a peremptory instruction, for the reason that appellee had failed to prove that appellants were partners. But in this, they are wholly mistaken. There was abundant evidence from which the jury might reasonably infer that a partnership relation existed between appellants.

It does not appear that the instructions were in any way made a part of the record, but, if it be conceded that they were, instructions 13 and 15 were correct statements of the law as applied to the lease.

The judgment is affirmed.
**
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR OFFICER IN CHARGE OF SECURITIZATION OF THE DEPOSITOR PURSUANT TO RULE15D-14(D)**

I, Daniel McGrath, certify that: 

 
 1.
I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K and all reports on Form 10-D required to be filed in respect of the period covered by this report on Form 10-K of SMART ABS Series 2016-2USTrust (the “**Exchange Act Periodic Reports**”); 

 
 2.
Based on my knowledge, the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, taken as a whole, do not contain any untrue statementof 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 report; 

 
 3.
Based on my knowledge, all of the distribution, servicing and other information required to be provided underForm 10-D for the period covered by this report is included in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports; 

 
 4.
Based on my knowledge and the servicer compliance statements required in this report under Item 1123 ofRegulation AB, and except as disclosed in the Exchange Act Periodic Reports, the servicers have fulfilled their obligations under the servicing agreements in all material respects; and 

 
 5.
All of the reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities and theirrelated attestation reports on assessment of compliance with servicing criteria for asset-backed securities required to be included in this report in accordance with Item 1122 of Regulation AB and Exchange Act Rules 13a-18 and 15d-18 have been included as an exhibit to this report, except as otherwise disclosed in this report. Any material instances of noncompliance described in suchreports have been disclosed in this report on Form 10-K.

In giving the certificationsabove, I have reasonably relied on information provided to me by the following unaffiliated parties: The Bank of New York Mellon and Perpetual Trustee Company Limited. 

 
    
Date: June 26, 2019 

 
Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited,as DepositorBy: 
/s/ Daniel McGrath
 Name:   Daniel McGrath Title:     Division Director*
 
*
Daniel McGrath is the senior officer in charge of securitization of Macquarie Leasing Pty Limited.
**
<PAGE>



                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1


                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS


We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (File Nos. 33-69740, 333-87538, 33-90730, 33-91084,
333-43317, 333-43319 and 333-61339, 333-113910) and Form S-8 (File Nos.
33-94542, 333-10221 and 333-84537) of Glimcher Realty Trust of our report dated
February 23, 2004, except for Note 20, as to which the date is February 27,
2004, and except for the future minimum rentals as presented in tabular form in
Note 8 and Note 22, as to which the date is April 23, 2004, relating to the
financial statements and financial statement schedules, which appears in this
Form 10-K/A No. 1.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Columbus, OH
April 30, 2004
#### John Toffolon et al. *v.*United Bank and Trust Company

*David T. Ryan,*for the appellee (defendant).

*Robert L. Hirtle,*for the appellants (plaintiffs).

Argued June 4

decided June 4, 1974

The defendant’s motion to dismiss the appeal from the Superior Court in Hartford County is granted unless a request for a finding is filed on or before June 10, 1974.
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

MEMORANDUM OPINION

N o. 04

- 13

- 00204

- CV

ROMA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT

, Appellant

v.

Noelia M. GUILLEN , Raul Moreno, Dagoberto Salinas, and Tony Saenz,

Appellees

From the 229th Judicial District Court, Starr County, Texas

Trial Court No. DC

- 13

- 64

David Wellington Chew, Judge Presiding

PER CURIAM

Sitting: Catherine Stone, Chief Justice

Karen Angelini, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

Delivered and Filed: June 26, 2013

MOTION TO DISMISS GRANTED; DISMISSED

Appellant filed a motion to dismiss this appeal. We grant the motion. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

42.1(a)(1). Because the motion does not disclose an agreement of the parties regarding the

assessment of costs, we order all cost s assessed against appellant. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(d)

(absent agreement of the parties, costs are taxed against appellant).

PER CURIAM