alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 242 (Wednesday, December 16, 2020)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81451-81452]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-27612]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration


North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Article 1904; 
Binational Panel Review: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision

AGENCY: United States Section, NAFTA Secretariat, International Trade 
Administration, Department of Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of NAFTA Panel Decision in the matter of Ammonium 
Sulphate from the United States of America. (Secretariat File Number: 
MEX-USA-2015-1904-01.)

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

SUMMARY: On December 7, 2020, a NAFTA Binational Panel issued its Final 
Decision in the matter of Ammonium Sulphate from the United States of 
America (Determination on Remand). The Binational Panel remanded the 
Secretaria de Economia's (Economia) Determination on Remand

[[Page 81452]]

and ordered Economia to issue a redetermination within 90 days.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Vidya Desai, Acting United States 
Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat, Room 2061, 1401 Constitution Avenue NW, 
Washington, DC 20230, (202) 482-5438.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Article 1904 of Chapter 19 of NAFTA provides 
a dispute settlement mechanism involving trade remedy determinations 
issued by the Government of the United States, the Government of 
Canada, and the Government of Mexico. Following a Request for Panel 
Review, a Binational Panel is composed to provide judicial review of 
the trade remedy determination being challenged and then issue a 
binding Panel Decision. The NAFTA Binational Panel Decision is 
available publicly at https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/report-rapport-reporte.aspx?lang=eng. There are established NAFTA Rules of 
Procedure for Article 1904 Binational Panel Reviews and the NAFTA Panel 
Decision has been notified in accordance with Rule 70. For the complete 
Rules, please see https://can-mex-usa-sec.org/secretariat/agreement-accord-acuerdo/nafta-alena-tlcan/rules-regles-reglas/article-article-articulo_1904.aspx?lang=eng.

    Dated: December 10, 2020.
Vidya Desai,
Acting U.S. Secretary, NAFTA Secretariat.
[FR Doc. 2020-27612 Filed 12-15-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-GT-P
#### Timbello Enterprises Inc., Respondent, v. Agricultural Insurance Co., Appellant.

Order unanimously modified in accordance with the memorandum and as modified affirmed, with $25 costs and disbursements to appellant. Memorandum: Appellant moved to dismiss the plaintiff’s complaint in an action which was commenced in Onondaga County several months after the institution of a New York County action involving the same issues between the same parties. It requested, however, that in the alternative, if the complaint be not dismissed, the actions should be consolidated and tried together in the Supreme Court of New York County. The respondent, prior to the motion herein, had moved in New York County for a change of venue to Onondaga County and that motion had been denied. No appeal was taken from that denial. Special Term on this motion directed consolidation of the two actions but ordered that they be tried in Onondaga County. The effect of this order was to reverse the order entered in New York County on the venue motion and was in effect an exercise of appellate jurisdiction which Special Term did not possess. We agree with that portion of Special Term’s order consolidating the two actions but reverse the provision that the actions be tried in Onondaga County and direct that the consolidated actions be tried in Supreme Court of New York County, under Index No. 18263/1962. (Appeal from order of Onondaga Special Term denying motion to dismiss complaint.) Present — Williams, P. J., Bastow, Goldman, Halpern and Henry, JJ.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 21 - 0587 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. JOSE MARTINEZ JR.,

Defendant and Appellant.

**O RDER**  Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including January 27, 2023 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

December 22 2022

12/22/2022

Case Number: DA 21-0587
§ 556.1101 May I relinquish my lease or an aliquot part thereof? ( a ) A record title owner may relinquish a lease or an aliquot part of a lease if all record title owners of a lease or any aliquot part(s) of the lease file three original copies of a request to relinquish with BOEM on Form BOEM-0152, entitled, “Relinquishment of Federal Oil and Gas Lease.” No filing fee is required.
( b ) A relinquishment will be subject to the continued obligation of the record title owner and the surety to make all payments due, including any accrued rentals, royalties and deferred bonuses, and to abandon all wells and condition or remove all platforms and other facilities on the land to be relinquished to the satisfaction of the Director.
( c ) The effective date of the relinquishment is the date on which the relinquishment is filed with the proper BOEM regional office.
1

Whalen, Marilyn

From: Poentis, Aaron Y CIV NAVFAC HI, EV <aaron.poentis@navy.mil>

Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 3:55 AM

To: Richard Takaba (richard.takaba@doh.hawaii.gov); roxanne.kwan@doh.hawaii.gov

Cc: Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; Kishaba, Raelynn I CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; 

Tsutsui, Bruce O CIV NAVFAC HI, OPHE3; Shimabuku, June T. CIV NAVFAC HI, EV4; 

stuart.yamada@doh.hawaii.gov; steven.chang@doh.hawaii.gov; Linder, Steven; Pallarino, 

Bob; Lovgren, Andrew C LCDR, NAVSUP FLCPH C700

Subject: RED HILL STATUS REPORT - February 3, 2015

Signed By: aaron.poentis@navy.mil

Importance: High

Hi Richard/Roxanne:

Attached are the updated information for the weekly progress report from Navy Region Hawaii, and the Fleet Logistic

Center Pearl Harbor for the week of February 3, 2015.  In a process to ease reading, only sections with changes will be

annotated.

1. Preliminary Work Plan  

Action complete.

2. Release Response Action Items (initiate immediately, complete as soon as practicable)

a. Action 1 ‐ Provide a schedule for the ventilation of Tank 5 and an estimated date to commence the investigation

of release point(s) within Tank 5.

Action complete.

b. Action 2  ‐ The rate of vertical migration for the released JP‐8 free product is unknown.  Information from the

previously collected basalt cores could be used for initial modeling of vertical migration.  This information is necessary to

protect drinking water resources from petroleum contamination.  Prepare models for petroleum JP‐8 releases of 10,000,

20,000 and 30,000 gallons from points at 25% intervals from the bottom to the top of Tank 5.   

No change.   

c. Action 3 ‐ Removal of petroleum free product from the area outside the tank will reduce downward migration of

the released JP‐8 free product.  Characterization of the free product plume and recovery of free product with increased

monitoring are required to address this plume.   

No change.  

d. Action 4 ‐ Additional studies and procedures are required to address the potential and impact of any future

releases from the USTs within the Complex.  This will require new financial and personnel resources to complete.  

Funding for the preliminary work plan and all necessary following work is critical.   

d.(1)  Groundwater Monitoring Wells

Groundwater samples were collected from the two new wells on January 23, 2015.  The remaining groundwater

monitoring wells were sampled January 26‐29, 2015.
2

d.(2)  Site Characterization  

No change.   

d.(3)  AOC/SOW  

Discussions are ongoing.

d.(4)  Request for Additional Information  

No change.

d.(5)  BWS/USGS Groundwater Flow Study

No change.

Please feel free to contact us if you have any questions.

v/r,

Aaron
Petition for Writ of Mandamus Denied and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 24 , 201 3

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 13

- 00792

- CV

IN RE ANTHONY GLENN MADRY , Relator

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

### MEMORANDUM OPINION

On September 10, 2013, relator Anthony Glenn Madry filed a petition for
writ of m andamus in this Court. See Tex. Elec. Code Ann. § 273.061 ; see also Tex. R. App. P. 52. In the petition, relator ask s this Court to compel Anna Eastman, Houston Independent School District Board President, and Veronica
Mabasa
, Houston Independent School District Board Services Team Lead , to place his name on the ballot for Houston Independent School District Board of Tru stees District VI.2

Rela t or has not established his entitlement to mandamus relief. Accordingly, we deny relator ’ s petition for writ of mandamus . We also deny relator’s emergency application for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consists of Justices Frost, Boyce, and Jamison.
----

| (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:  August 3, 2012 | /s/ John M. Lowber           |
|----------------------------|-----------------------------------|
|                       | John M. Lowber                    |
|                       | Secretary, Treasurer and Director |
|                       | GCI, Inc.                         |

----
### §453. Transferred

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Section, act May 28, 1908, ch. 211, §2, 35 Stat. 424, which related to preference right of United States to purchase of coal for Army and Navy, was transferred to section 193a of Title 30, Mineral Lands and Mining.
Document

                                                                                





PRIVATE AND CONFIDENTIAL


The Directors
MiX Telematics Limited 
Waterfall Office Park
Unit 8 Howick Close
Midrand
1685


Attention: Daniel Reichenberg


									
	Date
	 Direct telephone
 number
	In reply please quote
 our reference

	18 November 2022
	(011) 721-5872
	M Napo/ R Moodley/M Mashabela 







 RELEASE OF SECURITY




1.The Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (Registration Number: 1962/000738/06) (the Bank) confirms that it is agreeable to amending to the following transactions: (a) the facility letter dated 21 February 2018 (as amended, varied or novated from time to time) (the Facility Letter) entered into between itself and MiX Telematics Limited (Registration Number: 1995/013858/06) (the Customer) in terms of which Facility Letter the Bank provides certain banking facilities to the Customer; and (b) the suretyship and cession of claims securing the Customer’s indebtedness (among other parties) to the Bank and signed by the Customer, MiX Telematics Africa (Registration Number: 2004/019797/07) and MiX Telematics International Proprietary Limited (Registration Number: 1963/006970/07) (MiX Telematics International) on or about 7 March 2013 (the Suretyship and Cession of Claims). 


2.The nature of the amendments are as follows: 




2.1 In terms of the Facility Letter, the Bank will provide to the Customer a Customer Foreign Currency Account Overdraft Facility with a maximum aggregate limit of R70 000 000 (seventy million Rand); 


2.2 the Suretyship and Cession of Claims will be terminated and has been replaced with a new suretyship (in form and substance acceptable to the Bank) to be signed by the Customer and MiX Telematics in favour of the Bank; 


2.3 in order to attain the pari passu principle vis-à-vis the Bank and any other present or future financial  services providers of the Customer, any other security which the Customer has furnished to the Bank, including (a) a cession of book debts, for an unlimited amount, by MiX Telematics International; and (b) a cession of book debts, for an unlimited amount, by the Customer shall be released upon the signature of the new suretyship; and











2.4 the Customer will ensure that its obligations and liabilities towards the Bank at all times rank at least pari passu with all its other present and future obligations of the same type with any other financial institution. 


3. Kindly confirm your acceptance of the terms and conditions of this letter by signing and returning a copy to the Bank. 






Yours faithfully 




____________________________ 
Raven Moodley 
SA Head: Telecoms, Media & Technology
UN PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18
- 1680

MELVIN AUGUSTO MENDEZ

- AGUILAR , Petitioner ,

v. MATTHEW G. WHITAKER , Acting Attorney General , Respondent

.

On Petition for Review of an Order of the Board of Immigration Appeals

.

Submitted : January 24, 2019 Decided: January 30, 2019

Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE , Circuit Judges.

Petition denied in part, dismissed in part by un published per curiam opinion

.
Rachel L. Rado, THE LAW OFFICES OF RACHEL L. RADO, LLC , Boston, Massachusetts , for Petitioner. Joseph H. Hunt , Assistant Attorney General, Anthony P. Nicastro, Assistant Director , Joanna L. Watson, Office of Immigration Litigation, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington , D.C., for Respondent.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Melvin Augusto Mendez

- Aguilar, a native and citizen of Guatemala, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) d ismissi ng his appeal from the immigration judge’s decision denying his motion to reopen and rescind his in
absentia removal order. Mendez

- Aguilar contends that the Board erred in affirming the IJ’s decision deny ing reopen ing and abused its discretion by declining to use its sua sponte authority to reopen proceedings . We deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for
review. We find no reason to disturb the Board’s affirmance of the IJ’s decision denying reopening as the r ecord establishes that Mendez

- Aguilar received proper notice of the hearing. Accordingly, we deny in part the petition for review. We also dismiss in part the petition for review because we are without jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision not

to s ua sponte reopen proceedings. See Lawrence v. Lynch, 826 F.3d 198, 206 (4th Cir. 2016) . We also deny Mendez

- Aguilar’s motion to supplement the record. See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(4)(a) (2012). Accordingly, we deny in part and dismiss in part the petition for review and deny the motion to supplement the record . 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 I N PART , DISMISSED IN PART
§ 1208.12 Payment requirements. ( a ) All payments to ONRR by a purchaser of royalty oil will be due on the date and at the location specified in the contract, or, if there is no contractual provision, as specified by ONRR. The purchaser shall tender all payments to ONRR in accordance with § 1218.51 of this chapter. Payments made by a payor pursuant to the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section and § 1208.13 also shall be tendered in accordance with § 1218.51 of this chapter.
( b ) ( 1 ) Payments from a purchaser of royalty oil not received by ONRR when due, or that portion of the payment less than the full amount due, will be subject to a late payment charge equivalent to an interest assessment on the amount past due for the number of days that the payment is late at the underpayment rate applicable under section 6621 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.
( 2 ) The ONRR may assess interest to a payor for any underpayments which are the result of the payor's late or underreporting, or for adjustments reported by the payor, or made as a result of audit, reconciliation, or other procedures. The interest for late payment and underpayment will be assessed pursuant to § 1218.54 of this chapter.
( c ) If payment for royalty oil is not received by the due date specified in the contract, a notice of nonreceipt will be sent to the purchaser by certified mail. If payment is not received by ONRR within 15 days from the date of such notice, ONRR may cancel the contract and collect under the ONRR-specified surety instrument. See § 1208.11.
( d ) If the purchaser disagrees with the amount of payment due, it must pay the amount due as computed by ONRR, unless the purchaser appeals the amount and posts an ONRR-specified surety instrument pursuant to the provisions of 30 CFR part 1243. The ONRR may, at its discretion, waive the appeal surety requirements if it determines that the contract surety instrument is sufficient protection for an amount under appeal.
[52 FR 41913, Oct. 30, 1987, as amended at 64901, Dec. 10, 1993]
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas Pettis, Appellant.

Appeal from a judgment of the County Court of Albany County, rendered March 15, 1977, upon a verdict convicting defendant of the crime of arson in the third degree. The defendant was indicted and tried on two counts of arson in the third degree. Each count concerned separate properties although both properties were located in the City of Albany and owned by defendant’s employer. After a trial, defendant was acquitted on the first count of the indictment and found guilty on the second count. He was sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment with a minimum of five years and a maximum term of 15 years. On this appeal, defendant contends that although he had admitted his guilt in a confession, no additional proof was offered to support the conviction and, therefore, the judgment must be reversed (CPL 60.50). The additional proof necessary, however, need not amount to direct proof of the defendant’s criminal act *(People v Guernsey,*46 AD2d 698). The statute is satisfied by the production *1111of some proof that a crime was committed by someone and the additional evidence need not even connect or tend to connect the defendant with the crime *(People v Daniels,*37 NY2d 624, 629). A Battalion Chief of the City of Albany Fire Department testified that the fire in question was not caused by electricity, natural gas nor spontaneous combustion, eliminating accidental causes of fire. He also testified that heavy charring in a closet indicated that the fire was started in the closet itself. In our opinion, the fire chiefs testimony constituted competent evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the fire was of an incendiary nature and, therefore, the requirement of corroboration was satisfied (see *People v Sims,*37 NY2d 906). The defendant also argues that the sentence was unduly harsh and excessive and with this contention we must agree. The record reveals that defendant, aged 29, was married with two children and separated from his wife, that he was of below normal intelligence and that he had not previously been involved with the law. We note that at oral argument the District Attorney, with commendable candor, suggested that the minimum portion of the sentence be deleted. Upon an examination of the record, we are of the view that the interests of justice warrant a modification of the sentence imposed (cf. *People v Hutchins,*48 AD2d 942). We have carefully considered the remaining contentions urged by defendant and find them unpersuasive. Judgment modified, as a matter of discretion in the interest of justice, by reducing the sentence to a maximum of five years, and, as so modified, affirmed. Greenblott, J. P., Sweeney, Kane, Staley, Jr., and Main, JJ., concur.
#### Tennessee Gas Transmission Company, Appellant, v. Harchester Realty Corp., et al., Respondents.

Motion by respondents to dismiss appeal denied, on condition that appellant perfect the appeal and be ready to argue or submit it at the April Term, beginning March 27, 1961. The appeal is ordered on the calendar for said term. The record and appellant’s brief must be served and filed on or before March 17,1961. Nolan, P. J., Beldock, Ughetta, Kleinfeld and Pette, JJ., concur.
130 STAT. 1534 PUBLIC LAW 114–313—DEC. 16, 2016 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY—H.R. 6323: 

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, Vol. 162 (2016): 

Nov. 29, considered and passed House. 

Dec. 9, considered and passed Senate. 

Æ 

Public Law 114–313 

114th Congress 

An Act 

To name the Department of Veterans Affairs health care system in Long Beach, 

California, the ‘‘Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center’’. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 

the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. NAME OF THE DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS 

HEALTH CARE SYSTEM, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. 

The Department of Veterans Affairs health care system located 

at 5901 East 7th Street, Long Beach, California, shall after the 

date of the enactment of this Act be known and designated as 

the ‘‘Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center’’. Any reference to such health 

care system in any law, regulation, map, document, record, or 

other paper of the United States shall be considered to be a reference to the Tibor Rubin VA Medical Center. 

Approved December 16, 2016. 

Dec. 16, 2016 

[H.R. 6323] 


ralbany on LAP520R082 with PUBLIC LAW
#### In the Matter of the Claim of Walter Szewczuk, Appellant, v. Bethlehem Steel Co., Respondent. Workmen’s Compensation Board, Respondent.

—-Appeal by the claimant from a decision of the Workmen’s Compensation Board denying an application to reopen his case. Claimant alleges he suffered a compensable injury to his right thumb on August 25, 1954 when he was attacked by a fellow employee on the employer’s premises. At a hearing held October 15, 1957, at which claimant and his attorney were not present, medical testimony as to claimant’s condition was adduced which was generally unfavorable to claimant’s position. Thereafter the Referee denied compensation on the grounds that claimant’s condition with respect to his thumb was not causally related to *916the accident of August 25, 1954 and closed the case. No attempt to review this determination was then made. Almost five years later claimant sought to reopen the ease, presenting a Form C-27 by a Dr. Greenberg who had testified at the October, 1957 hearing. The reopening of a ease such as the present one is within the discretion of the board and is not reviewable unless the denial thereof is arbitrary and capricious (see, e.g., *Matter of Lu Core*v. *Hooker Electro chemical Co.,*6 A D 2d 624). Dr. Greenberg’s statement contained only a conclusion that he still felt the injury should have been found compensable originally and an opinion that the condition had worsened with the passage of time, which, of course, has no bearing on the issue of causal relationship. On the basis of the record before us the board’s determination should be sustained. Decision affirmed, without costs. Bergan, P. J., Gibson, Reynolds and Taylor, JJ., concur.