alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Editorial Note on Part 250
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 250 appear at 77 FR 50891, Aug. 22, 2012.

§ 250.126 Electronic payment instructions. ( a ) You must file all payments electronically through the Fees for Services Page on the BSEE website at *https://www.bsee.gov/who-we-are/working-with-us/Fees-for-Services .* This includes, but is not limited to, all OCS applications, permits, or any filing fees. You must include a copy of the *Pay.gov* confirmation receipt page with your application, permit, or filing fee.
( b ) If you submitted an application or permit through eWell, you must use the interactive payment feature in that system, which directs you through *Pay.gov* to make a payment. It is recommended that you keep a copy of your payment confirmation receipt in the event that any questions arise regarding your transaction.
[81 FR 36149, June 6, 2016; as amended at 87 FR 19803, Apr. 6, 2022]
### SUBCHAPTER I—ORGANIZATION AND FUNCTIONS
L ISA C. M C M INN J OHN R. M ESSINGER

S TATE P ROSECUTING ATTORNEY 

### O FFICE OF A SST

. S TATE P ROSECUTING ATTORNEY



## S TATE 

## P ROSECUTING 

## A TTORNEY



### P.O. B OX 

### 13046 S TACEY M. G OLDSTEIN



### C APITOL STATION A SST

. S TATE P ROSECUTING ATTORNEY

AUSTIN



### , TX 

### 78711

(512) 463-1660

October 12, 2015



### Honorable Abel Acosta

Clerk of the Court

Court of Criminal Appeals

P.O. Box 12308, Capitol Station

Austin, Texas 78701

Re: Ex parte James Richard “Rick” Perry

Cause No. PD-1067-15

Dear Mr. Acosta,

Please be advised that I will appear and present argument in the above referenced cause

on November 18, 2015.

Thank you for attention to this matter.

Sincerely,

/s/ Lisa C. McMinn

State Prosecuting Attorney PD-1067-15

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

AUSTIN, TEXAS

Transmitted 10/12/2015 9:39:05 AM

Accepted 10/13/2015 8:39:44 AM

ABEL ACOSTA

CLERK
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Sylvia Winograd, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, rendered December 16, 1976, convicting defendant on her plea of guilty to criminal usury, following denial of her motion to suppress, unanimously reversed, on the law, the plea of guilty is vacated, the motion to suppress is granted, and the matter is remanded for whatever further proceedings may be appropriate. Following denial of a written motion to contravene an eavesdropping warrant, with orders of extensions, and to suppress tape recordings taken in connection therewith, the defendant was permitted by oral motion to renew on a separate ground. The parties stipulated to certain facts. Contrary to the District Attorney’s contention here, the minutes indicate that an issue clearly raised was the alleged failure to comply with CPL 700.50 (subd 2), which requires judicial sealing of the eavesdropping recordings "Immediately upon the expiration * * * of an eavesdropping warrant.” The original eavesdropping warrant in question was secured effective June 7, 1973, which was followed by three successive 30-day extensions, the final one expiring October 16, 1973. The sealing was stipulated to have occurred with regard to all but a few of the tapes on October 26, 1973. Two questions with regard to the sealing are raised. The first question is whether or not CPL 700.50 (subd 2) requires tapes to be sealed immediately after the expiration of the original 30-day warrant, as well as immediately after the expiration of each of the orders of extension. This issue, which involves an interesting and difficult question of statutory interpretation, has been the subject of extensive judicial discussion and divergent conclusions. (Cf. *People v Pecoraro,*58 AD2d 462, 470; *People v Glasser,*58 AD2d 448; and *United States v Fury,*554 F2d 522.) We think it unnecessary to reach that issue here since the unexplained 10-day delay in sealing after the expiration of the last extension order cannot be reconciled with the statutory requirement that the tapes be sealed "immediately.” (Cf. *People v Pecoraro, supra,*with *United States v Fury, supra.)*Concur— Murphy, P. J., Fein, Lane, Sandler and Sullivan, JJ.
| Exhibit 99.2 **COLONIAL  SAVINGS****Management's Assertion Concerning Compliance with USAP Minimum Servicing****Standards******November 10, 2004 As of and for the year ended September 30, 2004, Colonial Savings, F.A. has complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth in the Mortgage Bankers Association of America's Uniform Single Attestation Program for Mortgage Bankers. As of and for this same period, Colonial Savings, F.A. had in effect a fidelity bond and errors and omissions policy in the amount of $10,000,000. /s/ Jim E. DuBose Jim E. DuBose President and Chief Executive Officer /s/ Ben Dempsey Ben Dempsey Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer 2626A WEST FREEWAY, FORT WORTH, TEXAS 76102 OFFICE: 817-390-2000 www.colonialsavings.com |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk September 28, 2009

0921 

# Order

September 28, 2009

139191

MICHAEL S. DORMAN, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v SC: 139191 COA: 284665 Macomb CC: 06-003807-NM GILBERT A. ZOOK, Defendant-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the applicati on for leave to appeal the May 21, 2009 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### Star Construction Corp. v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company et al.

Motion for a stay and for other relief granted, only insofar as to stay the execution and enforcement of the order of the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on November 29, 1960, on condition that the appellants procure the record on appeal and appellants’ points to be served and filed on or before December 22, 1960, with notice of argument for January 3, 1961, said appeal to be argued or submitted when reached. In all other respects, the motion is denied. Concur —Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente and McNally, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from SEC Form
10-Q and is qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                          44,946
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,375<F1>
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0<F1>
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0<F2>
<PP&E>                                       5,446,684
<DEPRECIATION>                                 358,928
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,046,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                0<F2>
<BONDS>                                      3,928,662
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    292,912
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,557,878
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,046,434
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               487,469
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  261,308
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 2,825
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             134,994
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 91,475
<INCOME-TAX>                                    91,475
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             91,475
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                               (24,714)
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    66,761
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.34
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.34
<FN>
<F1>Receivables are stated net of allowances and also include accrued revenues.
<F2>The Registrant does not report using a classified balance sheet.
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2**CERTIFICATION**Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.§ 1350, as adopted), ShirleyYin, Chief Financial Officer of Oplink Communications, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certifies that,to the best of his knowledge:**1. **The Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2007, to whichthis Certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the “Quarterly Report”) fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended;and**2. **The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition at the end of the period covered by the Quarterly Report and results ofoperations of the Company for the periods covered by the Quarterly Report.**In Witness Whereof,**the undersigned has set his hands hereto as of the 8th day of February, 2008.        /s/ Shirley Yin   Shirley Yin   Chief Financial Officer    This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed filed with the SECand is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company under the Securities Actof 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, irrespective of anygeneral incorporation language contained in such filing.
#### The People of the State of New York, Plaintiff, v. Seaboard Surety Company et al., Defendants. Pacific National Fire Insurance Company et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Riley Stoker Corporation, Third-Party Defendant-Appellant.

Order, entered on May 1, 1963, denying summary judgment unanimously reversed, on the law, with $20 costs and disbursements to appellant, and the motion of third-party defendant granted, with $10 costs. Plaintiff entered into a contract with defendant Interboro Company for the construction of a power plant for Central Islip Hospital. Claiming a breach of that contract, plaintiff brought this action against Interboro and two sureties on the contract. The two sureties brought a third-party action against the Riley Stoker Company (herein Riley) who had a subcontract with Interboro, claiming that Riley breached its contract and that said breach was the ground upon which plaintiff claims that the prime contract was breached by Interboro. Riley moved for summary judgment upon the ground that any claim for breach by it of its contract with Interboro was barred by the six-year Statute of Limitations (Civ. Prae. Act, § 48)., There is no dispute but that the six-year statute applied. It appears that Riley supplied and installed'the stokers. - .The installation and an inspection period of 10 days provided for in the subcontract was *871completed on June 12, 1953. It further appears that upon completion of' the installation plaintiff expressed dissatisfaction with the way the stokers were working. Riley sent representatives to the site who observed the working of the stokers, made suggestions, and assisted in making adjustments. Just how long this activity continued could be deemed a question of fact. However, the record lays this question to rest. Interboro consistently took the position that the stokers supplied by Riley conformed to the contract and Riley had fully performed. It advised Riley that anything further that Riley might do in regard to the stokers would be without Interboro’s authority and would not be in connection with Riley’s contract with Interboro. Furthermore, Interboro confirmed these instructions by letter dated July 25, 1956. While this letter is within six years of the institution of the cross action, it is clear that it is not the initiation of a new attitude but confirmation of the position that Interboro had adopted and maintained since it had accepted the stokers in 1953, and, in fact, affirms it. It would naturally follow that if there was a breach of Riley’s contract with Interboro it must perforce have occurred before that date and, consequently, any action for that breach is barred. Concur — Botein, P. J., McNally, Stevens, Steuer and Bastow, JJ.
### §729. Advisory Board

Members of the Board of Directors of the Association serving on the day before August 13, 1981, shall serve as an Advisory Board to the Association. A member of the Advisory Board who is not otherwise an employee of the Federal Government shall receive reimbursement for travel, subsistence, and other necessary expenses incurred in the performance of such duties. The Chairman of the Association shall serve as Chairman of the Advisory Board. Any vacancy on the Advisory Board shall be filled by the Association with a representative from the group which had a representative in the vacant position.

(Pub. L. 93–236, title II, §219, as added Pub. L. 97–35, title XI, §1150(a), Aug. 13, 1981, 95 Stat. 675.)

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Aug. 13, 1981, see section 1169 of Pub. L. 97–35, set out as a note under section 1101 of this title.

#### Abolition of United States Railway Association and Transfer of Functions and Securities

See section 1341 of this title.

#### Termination of Advisory Boards

Advisory boards established after Jan. 5, 1973, to terminate not later than the expiration of the 2-year period beginning on the date of their establishment, unless, in the case of a board established by the President or an officer of the Federal Government, such board is renewed by appropriate action prior to the expiration of such 2-year period, or in the case of a board established by the Congress, its duration is otherwise provided for by law. See sections 1001(2) and 1013 of Title 5, Government Organization and Employees.
----

| (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 result of operations of the      Company. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| Date:  March      20, 2009 | /s/ Ronald A.      Duncan        |
|--------------------------------------|----------------------------------|
|                                 | Ronald A.      Duncan            |
|                                 | Chief      Executive Officer     |
|                                 | General      Communication, Inc. |

----
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 accompanying quarterly report of Liteglow
Industries, Inc, (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending
September 30, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange
commission on the date hereof (the"Report"), I, Spencer Krumholz,
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, to the best of my knowledge, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a)
or15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


By:/S/Spencer Krumholz
   --------------------
Name:  Spencer Krumholz

Date:  December 1, 2003
I 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 3392 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear with open toes or 

heels. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 21, 2005 

Mr. RYUN of Kansas introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 

Committee on Ways and Means 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain footwear with 

open toes or heels. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN FOOTWEAR WITH OPEN TOES OR 

4 HEELS. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 
2 

•HR 3392 IH 

‘‘ 9902.64.09 Footwear with outer soles of 

rubber or plastics and uppers of textile materials 

other than of vegetable fibers, with open toes or open 

heels, the foregoing other 

than house slippers and 

other than footwear for 

women (provided for in subheading 6404.19.30) ............ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ
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 General Communication, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald A. Duncan, 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: 

 

|   | (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 result of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

 

| Date:  June 10, 2008 | /s/ Ronald A. Duncan        |
|----------------------|-----------------------------|
|                 | Ronald A. Duncan            |
|                 | Chief Executive Officer     |
|                 | General Communication, Inc. |

 

 

 

1
Order filed November 4, 2021 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-21-00494-CV

____________

DANIEL OSAZUWA AKHIONBARE, Appellant

V.

HOCHHEIM PRAIRIE INSURANCE AS SUBROGEE OF BUDDY BELL, 

Appellee

On Appeal from the County Civil Court at Law No. 4

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1159610

O R D E R

Appellant’s brief was due October 13, 2021. No brief or motion to extend time 

has been filed. Unless appellant files a brief with this court on or before November 

18, 2021, the court will dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. See Tex. R. App. 

P. 42.3(b).

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Chief Justice Christopher and Justices Zimmerer and Wilson.
### §12506. Delegation of authority

The Secretary of Transportation may delegate to an agency, a State, or a qualified person the authority to—

(1) establish and maintain the vessel identification system; and

(2) charge fees under section 12505 of this title to a person making information available to or requesting information from the vessel identification system.

(Added Pub. L. 100–710, title I, §101(a), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4737.)

#### Historical and Revision Notes

#### Revised section 12506

This section allows the Secretary to delegate the authority to establish and maintain the vessel identification system to an agency, a State, or a qualified person. The Secretary may also delegate the authority to charge fees under section 12505 for requesting information from or making information available to the vessel identification system.

#### **Statutory Notes and Related Subsidiaries**

#### Effective Date

Section effective Jan. 1, 1989, with certain exceptions and qualifications, see section 107 of Pub. L. 100–710, set out as a note under section 31301 of this title.
### §341. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act Mar. 30, 1948, ch. 162, 62 Stat. 100, which made provision for occupancy and use of national-forest lands under permit and dealt with period of such permits, size of area allotted, prohibitions, and the termination of permits, was transferred to section 497a of Title 16, Conservation.