alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
372 A.2d 67.

#### Jayne Ann Dresser *et al. vs.*A. T. & G., Inc. *et al.*

APRIL 11, 1977.

Present: Bevilacqua, C.J., Paolino, Joslin, Kelleher and Doris, JJ.

*67Per Curiam.

This petition for certiorari was brought to review the Superior Court judgment reversing the decision of the Zoning Board of Review of the Town of North Smithfield. The case was originally before us in *A. T. & G., Inc.*v. *Zoning Bd. of Review,*113 R.I. 458, 322 A.2d 294 (1974), in which we remanded the case to the Superior Court for further proceedings. The Superior Court, in turn, remanded the matter to the zoning board for a further hearing on the question of the termination or discontinuance of the nonconforming use. No further hearing was held. Instead, the transcript and exhibits of the original hearing were reviewed and findings of fact and conclusions therefrom were filed in Superior Court.

During oral argument before this court, it was disclosed that only four individuals participated in rendering the decision on remand. Moreover, between the time of the zoning board’s original decision and the remand, the composition of the board had changed. Several of the individuals participating in the decision on remand had been *68members of the original board, but were not members of the presently constituted zoning board.

*Lavine & Sutherland, Robert Hope Larder, Paul P. Baillargeon,*for petitioners.

*Fontaine & Croll, Paul A. Fontaine,*for respondents.

In *Coderre*v. *Zoning Bd. of Review,*103 R.I. 575, 239 A.2d 729 (1968), we held:

> “[W]here there has been a change in the composition of a board of review made subsequent to the rendering of a decision which this court remands for clarification, completion and/or supplementation of the record on which the decision was based, a hearing de novo on the application for relief is a jurisdictional condition precedent to a valid decision.” *Id.*at 577-78, 239 A.2d at 730.

In addition, all five members of the presently constituted zoning board must participate in rendering a decision. *Kent*v. *Zoning Bd. of Review,*102 R.I. 258, 229 A.2d 769 (1967). Since the zoning board failed to hold a hearing de novo, and since the board failed to have all five members of the presently constituted board participate in deciding this matter, its decision was invalid.

The petition for certiorari is granted, the decision of the Superior Court is quashed without prejudice to the applicants to have their applications considered de novo, and the records certified are ordered returned to the Superior Court with our decision endorsed thereon.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

December 18, 2019

No. 04-19-00855-CR

IN RE Destyn David FREDERICK

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

On December 9, 2019, relator filed a petition for writ of mandamus. After considering the 

petition, this court concludes relator is not entitled to the relief sought. Accordingly, the petition 

for writ of mandamus is DENIED. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.8(a). Relator’s request for leave to file 

his petition for writ of mandamus is DENIED AS MOOT.

It is so ORDERED on December 18, 2019.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 18th day of December, 2019.

_____________________________

Michael A. Cruz, Clerk of Court

 1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 11-09-00041-CRL, styled The State of Texas v. Destyn David Frederick, 

pending in the 81st Judicial District Court, La Salle County, Texas, the Honorable Donna S. Rayes presiding.
NASA LogoNTRSNTRS - NASA Technical Reports ServerSearchmore_vertCollectionsAboutNewsHelpLogin Back to ResultsMicrostructural and Material Quality Effects on Rolling Contact Fatigue of Highly Elastic Intermetallic NiTi Ball BearingsRolling element bearings made from highly-elastic intermetallic materials (HIM)s, such as 60NiTi, are under development for applications that require superior corrosion and shock resistance. Compared to steel, intermetallics have been shown to have much lower rolling contact fatigue (RCF) stress capability in simplified 3-ball on rod (ASTM STP 771) fatigue tests. In the 3-ball tests, poor material quality and microstructural flaws negatively affect fatigue life but such relationships have not been established for full-scale 60NiTi bearings. In this paper, 3-ball-on-rod fatigue behavior of two quality grades of 60NiTi are compared to the fatigue life of full-scale 50mm bore ball bearings made from the same materials. 60NiTi RCF rods with material or microstructural flaws suffered from infant mortality failures at all tested stress levels while high quality 60NiTi rods exhibited no failures at lower stress levels. Similarly, tests of full-scale bearings made from flawed materials exhibited early surface fatigue and through crack type failures while bearings made from high quality material did not fail even in long-term tests. Though the full-scale bearing test data is yet preliminary, the results suggest that the simplified RCF test is a good qualitative predictor of bearing performance. These results provide guidance for materials development and to establish minimum quality levels required for successful bearing operation and life.Document ID20170002297Acquisition SourceGlenn Research CenterDocument TypeTechnical Memorandum (TM)AuthorsDellacorte, Christopher*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Howard, S. Adam*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Thomas, Fransua*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Stanford, Malcolm K.*(NASA Glenn Research Center Cleveland, OH United States)*Date AcquiredMarch 17, 2017Publication DateMarch 1, 2017Subject CategoryMetals And Metallic MaterialsMechanical EngineeringReport/Patent NumberE-19341NASA/TM-2017-219466GRC-E-DAA-TN38995Funding Number(s)WBS: WBS 401769.06.01.01.06Distribution LimitsPublicCopyrightWork of the US Gov. Public Use Permitted.KeywordsmetalstribologybearingsAvailable DownloadsNameType20170002297.pdfSTIcloud_downloadcontent_copyvisibilityRelated RecordsThere are no records associated with this record.visibility_offNo Preview Available
 No Fear Act | Freedom of Information Act | Office of the Inspector General | Agency Financial ReportsNASA Web Privacy Policy and Important Notices | NASA Guidelines for Quality of InformationDisclaimers, Copyright, Terms of Use | Accessibility | NASA OCIO | USA.gov | NASA.govContact Us | Site MapSTI LogoNASA Official: JoAnne R. Calhoun Site Curator: STI Compliance and Distribution Services Last Modified: September 12, 2024
Exhibit 13.1

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 Sasol Limited (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the period ending June 30, 2004, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned hereby certify that to the best of our knowledge:



|Date: October 29, 2004 |  | /s/ PIETER VOGEL COX     
|---------------------- |  | -------------------------
|                       |  | Name:                    
|                       |  | Title:                   
|Date: October 29, 2004 |  | /s/ TREVOR STEWART MUNDAY
|                       |  | Name:                    
|                       |  | Title:                   

A
signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to and will be retained by Sasol Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This
certification will not be deemed "filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise subject to the liability of that section. This
certification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, even if the document with which it is
submitted to the Securities and Exchange Commission is so incorporated by reference.

---



QuickLinks
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE 

IN THE MATTER OF THE 

PETITION OF PETER 

KOSTYSHYN FOR A WRIT OF 

MANDAMUS 

§ 

§ No. 116, 2019 

§ 

§ 

 

 Submitted: March 28, 2019 

 Decided: April 2, 2019 

ORDER 

On March 12, 2019, the petitioner, Peter Kostyshyn, filed a petition for a writ 

of mandamus directing the Superior Court to release him immediately to Level III 

supervision. On March 12, 2019, the Senior Court Clerk issued a notice directing 

Kostyshyn to show why this appeal should not be dismissed based on: (i) his failure 

to comply with this Court’s July 16, 2013 order requiring him to include the filing 

fee or a properly completed motion to proceed in forma pauperis with pro se filings 

relating to his criminal cases; and (ii) his failure to state a basis for the issuance of a 

writ of mandamus. Kostyshyn failed to respond to the notice to show cause within 

the required the ten-day period, making dismissal deemed to be unopposed. 

This is the third proceeding Kostyshyn has instituted in this Court relating to 

his alleged violation of probation in 2018.1

 If Kostyshyn files any additional 

 

1 Kostyshyn v. State, 2019 WL 327961, at *1 (Del. Jan. 23, 2019) (dismissing interlocutory appeal 

regarding Kostyshyn’s competency for a contested violation of probation hearing); In re 

Kostyshyn, No. 115, 2019 (interlocutory appeal from the Superior Court’s February 21, 2019 

rulings). 
2

interlocutory appeals or writs in this Court relating to this violation of probation, the 

Clerk is directed not to docket such filings absent leave of the Court. 

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, under Supreme Court Rules 3(b)(2) 

and 29(c), that this appeal is DISMISSED. 

BY THE COURT: 

/s/ Collins J. Seitz, Jr. 

Justice
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                                 5
<LEGEND>  THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION
EXTRACTED FROM      REGISTRANT'S CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS DATED JUNE 30, 1998 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY
REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
<MULTIPLIER>1000
       
<S>                              <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                    6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                     JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                              273
<SECURITIES>                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                      1256
<ALLOWANCES>                          0
<INVENTORY>                         827
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                   2524
<PP&E>                            22255
<DEPRECIATION>                     5537
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                    21679
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>              1892
<BONDS>                            1000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                 0
<PREFERRED>                           0
<COMMON>                            218
<OTHER-SE>                        13343
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>      21679
<SALES>                            3088
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                   3205
<CGS>                              3218
<TOTAL-COSTS>                      5418
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                   1082
<LOSS-PROVISION>                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                 1085
<INCOME-PRETAX>                   (3335)
<INCOME-TAX>                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>               (3335)
<DISCONTINUED>                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                   (3335)
<CHANGES>                             0
<NET-INCOME>                      (3335)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                      (.15)
<EPS-DILUTED>                      (.15)
        



</TABLE>
§ 1900.03 Contact for general information and requests. ( a ) A member of the public seeking to file a FOIA request or an administrative appeal must direct a written request or appeal via mail to: Information and Privacy Coordinator, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, or online at: *https://www.foia.cia.gov/foia_request/form ,* in accordance with the requirements of this part.
( b ) Requesters may view the status of pending FOIA requests at *https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/request/status .* In addition, inquiries regarding the status of a FOIA request, obtaining guidance on narrowing or further defining the nature or scope of a FOIA request, or obtaining general information about the FOIA program at CIA, may be directed to the CIA FOIA Requester Service Center, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, via facsimile at (703) 613-3007, or via telephone at (703) 613-1287. Collect calls cannot be accepted.
( c ) Concerns, suggestions, comments, or complaints regarding the service received from CIA or regarding the Agency's general administration of the FOIA may be directed to the FOIA Public Liaison, Central Intelligence Agency, Washington, DC 20505, via facsimile at 703-613-3007, or via telephone at 703-613-1287. Collect calls cannot be accepted.
#### Ideal Tool & Manufacturing Company, appellee, v. J. Wadsworth Staff, appellant.

Gen. No. 29,307.

Action for goods sold and delivered. Judgment for the plaintiff. See 236 Ill. App. 633. Appeal from the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. William N. Gemmill, Judge, presiding. Heard in the third division of this court for the first district at the March term, 1924.

Affirmed.

Opinion filed February 11, 1925.

Joel C. Carlson, for appellant.

Herbert Bebb, for appellee; John A. Russell, of counsel.

Mr. Justice Thomson

delivered the opinion of the court.
### §1206. Use of transportation security card in hazmat licensing

#### (1) Background check

An individual who has a valid transportation employee identification card issued by the Secretary under section 70105 of title 46 shall be deemed to have met the background records check required under section 5103a of title 49.

#### (2) State review

Nothing in this section prevents or preempts a State from conducting a criminal records check of an individual that has applied for a license to operate a motor vehicle transporting in commerce a hazardous material.

(Pub. L. 110–53, title XV, §1556(b), Aug. 3, 2007, 121 Stat. 475.)
Exhibt 10.25


SECOND AMENDMENT

TO THE

NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

SUPPLEMENTAL EXECUTIVE RETIREMENT PLAN


WHEREAS, New York
Stock Exchange, Inc. (the “Exchange”) maintains the New York Stock Exchange,
Inc. Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan, amended and restated effective as
of June 1, 1999 and as thereafter amended (the “Plan”);


WHEREAS, pursuant to
Section 22 of the Plan, the Exchange reserves the right to amend the Plan upon
the terms and conditions therein set forth; and


WHEREAS, the Exchange
desires to amend the Plan.


NOW, THEREFORE, the Plan is
amended, effective April 1, 2004, as follows:


1.             The word “Chairman” in Section 1.12 and 2(d) of the Plan is
replaced with the words “Chairman or the Chief Executive Officer”.


2.             Section 4(b) of the Plan is amended in its entirety to read
as follows:


(b)           The Chairman or the Chief Executive
Officer of the NYSE may waive any of the requirements enumerated under
paragraph (a) above with respect to any Participant who incurs a Termination of
NYSE Employment at the initiation of the NYSE, as determined in the sole
discretion of the Chairman or Chief Executive Officer, provided, however, that
any such waiver with respect to the Chairman or the Chief Executive Officer of
the NYSE may only be made by the Human Resources Policy and Compensation Committee
of the Board and any waiver made by the Chairman or the Chief Executive Officer
of the NYSE must be promptly communicated to the Human Resources Policy and
Compensation Committee of the Board.  Any
waiver pursuant to this paragraph shall only be effective if made in writing.


IN WITNESS
WHEREOF, the Exchange has caused this
Amendment to be executed this 2nd
day of April, 2004.


	
   

  	
  NEW YORK STOCK EXCHANGE, INC.

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
  By

  	
  /s/ Dale B. Bernstein

  



 


ATTEST:


	
  /s/
  Darla C. Stuckey
fioatlib @ourt of €tmrsls

Court of Appeals No, if known' 04-15-00125-CR

Trial Court Style: State v. Hector Ramirez

rriat court No.. 20 1 3C R2994-W1

I am the official responsible for prepuing the clerk's record/reporter's record [circle one] in the abovereferenced appeal. The approximate date oftial ry6s; n/a

The record was originally due: April6, 2ots

I anticipate the length of the record to be: n/a

I am unable to file the recorrd by the date such record is due because [check one]:

D the appellant is not entitled to appeal without payng tlre fee, and the appellant has failed to pay the

fee or make arrangements to paythe fee for preparing such recordn my otherduties or activities precludeworking on therecord and includethe following [atractl

additional pages if neededl :

tr Other. Explain [attach additional pages if needed]. There was no record 1a1le ln this cause.

I anticipatethe record will be completed by: n/a

I, as the oourt official, certify thd a copy ofthis Notification of Late Record has bee,n served by first class

mail of fur to the parties to the judgrnent or order being ap,pealed.

Da&.412An5 Signature:

Printed

Name: Lisa J. Ramos

Rev. 1.8.14

.1.1r1r. Official Court Reporter, 227th District Court

 FILED IN 4th COURT OF APPEALS SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 4/27/2015 9:40:47 AM KEITH E. HOTTLE Clerk
#### § 937.815 Performance standards—coal exploration.

Part 815 of this chapter, *Permanent Program Performance Standards—Coal Exploration,* shall apply to any person conducting coal exploration operations.
[if !vml]>[endif]>

[if !vml]>[endif]>

You have reached the FederalDepository Library Program Electronic Collection (FDLP/EC) Archive. Thisarchive assures ongoing access to publications in the FDLP/EC. Access topublications in the archive is available through GPO's suite of cataloging andlocator services, including the Catalog of U.S. Government Publications(CGP).  Archived copies of publications are retrieved in the event thatpublications are no longer available from the original publishing agency site. 
**Title: Orbitaldata and preliminary analyses of Satellites 1957 Alpha and 1957 Beta**
 
PDF | Mobi | ePub
 
SuDoc Number:SI 1.12/2:2/10
Item Number:0909-B (online)
CGP systemNumber:001058504
 
May 29, 2018
# C_2008008EN.01001102.xml

| 12.1.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 8/11 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

12.1.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 8/11

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance of 20 November 2007 — Ianniello v Commission

(Case T-205/04) (1)

1

(Civil service - Officials - Career evaluation report - 2001/2002 evaluation period - Action for annulment - Action for damages)

(2008/C 8/20)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Alessandro Ianniello (Brussels, Belgium) (represented by: S. Rodrigues and Y. Minatchy, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by: J. Currall, Agent, assisted by D. Waelbroeck, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

On the one hand, annulment of the applicant's career evaluation report for the 2001/2002 evaluation period and the decision of the Appointing Authority of 18 February 2004 rejecting his complaint and, on the other, payment of compensation for the non-material suffered.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the application; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the application;

| 2. | Orders each party to bear their own costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders each party to bear their own costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 217 of 28.8.2004.

1

---
#### SAUNDERS, Plaintiff, v. ROCHESTER RY. CO., Defendant.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.

January 20, 1903.)

Action by Eleanor G. Saunders against the Rochester Railway Company.

No opinion. Plaintiff’s exceptions overruled. Motion for. a new trial denied, and judgment ordered for the defendant upon the nonsuit.
### Part B—Milk Donation Program

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Pub. L. 115–334, title I, §1404(b)(1), Dec. 20, 2018, 132 Stat. 4519, substituted "Milk Donation Program" for "Dairy Product Donation Program" in part heading.
§ 26.640 Employee. ( a ) *Employee* means the employee of a recipient directly engaged in the performance of work under the award, including— ( 1 ) All direct charge employees;
( 2 ) All indirect charge employees, unless their impact or involvement in the performance of work under the award is insignificant to the performance of the award; and
( 3 ) Temporary personnel and consultants who are directly engaged in the performance of work under the award and who are on the recipient's payroll.
( b ) This definition does not include workers not on the payroll of the recipient (*e.g.,* volunteers, even if used to meet a matching requirement; consultants or independent contractors not on the payroll; or employees of subrecipients or subcontractors in covered workplaces).
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-7577

LEE ROY KNOWLIN,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

HAROLD W. CLARKE; VIRGINIA PAROLE BOARD; VIRGINIA GOVERNING 

AGENTS,

Respondents – Appellees,

and

UNKNOWN,

Respondent.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Claude M. Hilton, Senior 

District Judge. (1:13-cv-00676-CMH-TRJ)

Submitted: November 18, 2014 Decided: November 20, 2014

Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Lee Roy Knowlin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Lee Roy Knowlin seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order dismissing as successive his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2012)

petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice 

or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1)(A) (2012). A certificate of appealability will not 

issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a 

constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2012). When the 

district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies 

this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would 

find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional 

claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 

484 (2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 

(2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive 

procedural ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a 

debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack, 

529 U.S. at 484-85. 

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude 

that Knowlin has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, 

we deny a certificate of appealability, deny leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral 

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately 
3

presented in the materials before this court and argument would 

not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED