alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 145 (Thursday, July 30, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 38052]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-18107]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION


Notice of Permits Denied Under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 
1978

AGENCY: National Science Foundation.

ACTION: Notice of permits denied under the Antarctic Conservation Act 
of 1978, Public Law 95-541.

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

SUMMARY: The National Science Foundation (NSF) is required to publish 
notice of permits denied under the Antarctic Conservation Act of 1978. 
This is the required notice.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nadene G. Kennedy, Permit Office, 
Office of Polar Programs, Rm. 755, National Science Foundation, 4201 
Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA 22230.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 1, 2009, the National Science 
Foundation published a notice in the Federal Register of a permit 
application received. The permit application from Stacy Kim was denied 
on July 23, 2009.

Nadene G. Kennedy,
Permit Officer.
[FR Doc. E9-18107 Filed 7-29-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7555-01-P
Editorial Note on Part 892
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 892 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 892.1540 Nonfetal ultrasonic monitor. ( a ) *Identification.* A nonfetal ultrasonic monitor is a device that projects a continuous high-frequency sound wave into body tissue other than a fetus to determine frequency changes (doppler shift) in the reflected wave and is intended for use in the investigation of nonfetal blood flow and other nonfetal body tissues in motion. This generic type of device may include signal analysis and display equipment, patient and equipment supports, component parts, and accessories.
( b ) *Classification.* Class II.
# C_2014361EN.01002901.xml

| 13.10.2014 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 361/29 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.10.2014

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 361/29

---

Action brought on 27 August 2014 — noon Copenhagen v OHIM — Wurster Diamonds (noon)

(Case T-637/14)

2014/C 361/43

Language in which the application was lodged: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: noon Copenhagen A/S (Løsning, Denmark) (represented by: M. Zöbisch, lawyer)

Applicant:

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

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal: Wurster Diamonds GmbH (Pforzheim, Germany)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:

| — | Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2014 given in Case R 955/2013-4. |
| --- | --- |

—

Annul the decision of the Fourth Board of Appeal of the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) of 12 June 2014 given in Case R 955/2013-4.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

Applicant for a Community trade mark: The applicant

Applicant for a Community trade mark:

Community trade mark concerned: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noon’ for goods and services in Class 14 — Community trade mark application No 1 0 2 15  556

Community trade mark concerned:

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings: The other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal

Proprietor of the mark or sign cited in the opposition proceedings:

Mark or sign cited in opposition: The figurative mark containing the verbal element ‘noor’ for goods in Class 14

Mark or sign cited in opposition:

Decision of the Opposition Division: Upheld the opposition

Decision of the Opposition Division:

Decision of the Board of Appeal: Dismissed the appeal

Decision of the Board of Appeal:

Pleas in law: Infringement of Article 8(1)(1)(b) CTMR.

Pleas in law:

---
#### § 1.1334-1 Restoration of value of investments.

If any interest of the taxpayer in or with respect to property was determined to be worthless and was treated as a war loss under section 127(a)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 (see 26 CFR (1939) 29.127(a)-4) (Regulations 111), or if the taxpayer retained an interest in a corporation with respect to which he sustained a war loss under section 127(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, and if the interest in the hands of the taxpayer is restored in value, in whole or in part, by reason of a recovery with respect to the underlying assets treated as war loss property, then such restoration in value is a recovery by the taxpayer for the purposes of section 1331. In the application of section 1333, such restoration shall be treated as a recovery of the same interest considered as destroyed or seized. War loss property is considered as not being in existence from the date of the loss to the date of its recovery.

[T.D. 6500, 25 FR 12046, Nov. 26, 1960]
Editorial Note on Part 880
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 880 appear at 73 FR 35341, June 23, 2008.

§ 880.5120 Manual adjustable hospital bed. ( a ) *Identification.* A manual adjustable hospital bed is a device intended for medical purposes that consists of a bed with a manual mechanism operated by an attendant to adjust the height and surface contour of the bed. The device includes movable and latchable side rails.
( b ) *Classification.* Class I (general controls). The device is exempt from the premarket notification procedures in subpart E of part 807 of this chapter, subject to the limitations in § 880.9. The device is also exempt from the current good manufacturing practice requirements of the quality system regulation in part 820 of this chapter, with the exception of § 820.180, with respect to general requirements concerning records, and § 820.198, with respect to complaint files.
[45 FR 69682, Oct. 21, 1980, as amended at 54 FR 25050, June 12, 1989; 66 FR 38804, July 25, 2001]
*

After an examination of the briefs and the record, we have concluded that oral

argument is unnecessary.  Thus, the appeal is submitted on the briefs and the record.  See

Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

United States Court of Appeals

For the Seventh Circuit

Chicago, Illinois  60604

Submitted May 21, 2009*

Decided May 22, 2009

Before

WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge

JOHN L. COFFEY, Circuit Judge

DANIEL A. MANION, Circuit Judge

No. 08‐2058

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff‐Appellee,

v.

RICHARD E. WARREN,

Defendant‐Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District

Court for the Northern District of

Illinois, Eastern Division.

No. 05 CR 921

Elaine E. Bucklo

Judge.

O R D E R

Richard Warren used a classic Ponzi scheme in trying to defraud a hedge fund out of

$25 million.  The fund manager jumped at the chance to earn a return of 80 to 100 percent in

a few weeks by investing in what Warren described as a no‐risk program overseen by the

Federal Reserve.  The fund got its money back only after federal investigators intervened.

NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION

To be cited only in accordance with

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1
No. 08‐2058 Page 2

Eventually a jury found Warren guilty on 11 counts of wire fraud, see 18 U.S.C. § 1343, and

the district court sentenced him to a total of 200 months in prison.   Warren, who is pro se,

argues in this direct appeal that the district court lacked both personal and subject‐matter

jurisdiction because he is a “citizen of GOD’s Kingdom and not of Earth.”  He made the

same frivolous argument 42 times in papers filed in the district court, to no avail.  District

courts have subject‐matter jurisdiction over any indictment charging a federal crime, 18

U.S.C. § 3231; United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560, 568 (7th Cir. 2008); United States v.

Hernandez, 330 F.3d 964, 977‐78 (7th Cir. 2003), as well as personal jurisdiction over any

defendant brought before the court to answer an indictment, United States v. Burke, 425 F.3d

400, 408 (7th Cir. 2005); United States v. Jones, 938 F.2d 1425, 1428 n. 6 (7th Cir. 1993).  And

since Warren raises no other challenge to his convictions or sentence, the judgment of the

district court is

AFFIRMED.
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

___________________________

No. 02

- 21

- 00074

- CV

___________________________

On Appeal from the 48th District Court

Tarrant County, Texas

Trial Cour t No. 048

- 276347

- 15

Before Bassel, W allach, and W alker, JJ.

Per Curiam Memorandum Opinion 

### H ARRIET 

### N ICHOLSON



### , Appellant

V



### .

N ATION 

### S TAR 

### M ORTGAGE



### , LLC , Appellee2 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND JUDGMENT

We have considered “Appellant ’ s Unopposed Motion to Dismiss Appeal

Pursuant to Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a).” We grant the motion and d ismiss the appeal.

See Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1), 43.2(f).

Per Curiam

Delivered : August 12, 2021
Exhibit 31.a

I, John P. Manning, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of American Affordable Housing II Limited Partnership;
2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The registrant'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 registrant and have:



1. 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 registrant, 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;
2. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant'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
3. disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting; and





1. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):



1. 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 registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
2. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial reporting.





|Date: November 14, 2007 | /s/ John P. Manning        
|----------------------- | ---------------------------
|                        | John P. Manning            
|                        | Principal Executive Officer
|                        |                            
|                        |                            
|                        |
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
     (Replace this text with the legend)
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000854858                    
<NAME>                        Ajay Sports, Inc.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
<CURRENCY>                                     US Dollars
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-1999
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                 1
<CASH>                                         27
<SECURITIES>                                  418 
<RECEIVABLES>                               3,351   
<ALLOWANCES>                                    0
<INVENTORY>                                 5,882   
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           10,275    
<PP&E>                                      1,446   
<DEPRECIATION>                                 95
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             14,802    
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       3,034   
<BONDS>                                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                       2,702   
<PREFERRED>                                 1,250   
<COMMON>                                       40
<OTHER-SE>                                  2,325
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               14,802    
<SALES>                                     4,263   
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            4,263   
<CGS>                                       3,595   
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 851 
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            253
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (462)  
<INCOME-TAX>                                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (462)  
<DISCONTINUED>                                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 0
<CHANGES>                                       0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (462)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                               (0.14)  
<EPS-DILUTED>                               (0.14)   
        



</TABLE>
NO. 07-06-0176-CR

 07-06-0177-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL A

MAY 11, 2006

______________________________

ALEISTER CARLTON BULL, APPELLANT

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, APPELLEE

_________________________________

FROM THE 181ST DISTRICT COURT OF POTTER COUNTY;

NO. 36932-B, 36933-B; HONORABLE JOHN B. BOARD, JUDGE

_______________________________

Before REAVIS and CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ.

ORDER ON ABATEMENT AND REMAND

Appellant Aleister Carlton Bull, acting pro se, has appealed his conviction and

sentence. A copy of a notice of appeal was filed with this Court on May 1, 2006. The

clerk’s record and reporter’s record have not been filed. Pending before this Court is a

request from the appellant requesting the Court to appoint an attorney to represent him.

In the interest of judicial efficiency we abate this appeal and remand the cause to the trial

court to conduct a hearing and determine whether appellant is indigent and entitled to

appointment of counsel. 
2

Should the trial court determine that appellant is indigent, then the trial court shall

take such measures as may be necessary to assure appellant effective assistance of

counsel, including the appointment of counsel. If counsel is appointed, the name, address,

telephone number, and state bar number of said counsel shall be included in the order

appointing counsel. Finally, the trial court shall execute findings of fact, conclusions of law,

and such orders as the court may enter regarding the aforementioned issues and cause

its findings and conclusions to be included in a supplemental clerk's record to be filed in

this court no later than Monday, June 12, 2006. 

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
§ 1.144-1 Qualified small issue bonds, qualified student loan bonds, and qualified redevelopment bonds. ( a ) *Overview.* Interest on a private activity bond is not excludable from gross income under section 103(a) unless the bond is a qualified bond. Under section 141(e)(1)(D), a qualified small issue bond issued under section 144(a) may be a qualified bond. Under section 144(a), any qualified small issue bond is any bond issued as a part of an issue 95 percent or more of the proceeds of which are to be used to provide certain manufacturing facilities or certain depreciable farm property and which meets other requirements. Under section 141(e)(1)(F) a qualified redevelopment bond issued under section 144(c) is a qualified bond. Under section 144(c), a qualified redevelopment bond is any bond issued as a part of an issue 95 percent or more of the net proceeds of which are to be used for one or more redevelopment purposes and which meets certain other requirements.
( b ) *Scope.* Sections 1.144-0 through 1.144-2 apply for purposes of the rules for small issue bonds under section 144(a) and qualified redevelopment bonds under section 144(c), except that § 1.144-2 does not apply to the requirements for qualified small issue bonds under section 144(a)(4) (relating to the limitation on capital expenditures) or under section 144(a)(10) (relating to the aggregate limit of tax-exempt bonds per taxpayer).
( c ) *Effective dates.* For effective dates of §§ 1.144-0 through 1.144-2, see § 1.141-16.
[T.D. 8712, 62 FR 2303, Jan. 16, 1997]
§ 1.267A-1 Disallowance of certain interest and royalty deductions. ( a ) *Scope.* This section and §§ 1.267A-2 through 1.267A-5 provide rules regarding when a deduction for any interest or royalty paid or accrued is disallowed under section 267A. Section 1.267A-2 describes hybrid and branch arrangements. Section 1.267A-3 provides rules for determining income inclusions and provides that certain amounts are not amounts for which a deduction is disallowed. Section 1.267A-4 provides an imported mismatch rule. Section 1.267A-5 sets forth definitions and special rules that apply for purposes of section 267A. Section 1.267A-6 illustrates the application of section 267A through examples. Section 1.267A-7 provides applicability dates.
( b ) *Disallowance of deduction.* This paragraph (b) sets forth the exclusive circumstances in which a deduction is disallowed under section 267A. Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, a specified party's deduction for any interest or royalty paid or accrued (the amount paid or accrued with respect to the specified party, a *specified payment*) is disallowed under section 267A to the extent that the specified payment is described in this paragraph (b). *See also* § 1.267A-5(b)(5) (treating structured payments as interest paid or accrued for purposes of section 267A and the regulations in this part under section 267A). A specified payment is described in this paragraph (b) to the extent that it is— ( 1 ) A disqualified hybrid amount, as described in § 1.267A-2 (hybrid and branch arrangements);
( 2 ) A disqualified imported mismatch amount, as described in § 1.267A-4 (payments offset by a hybrid deduction); or
( 3 ) A specified payment for which the requirements of the anti-avoidance rule of § 1.267A-5(b)(6) are satisfied.
( c ) *De minimis exception.* Paragraph (b) of this section does not apply to a specified party for a taxable year in which the sum of the specified party's specified payments that but for this paragraph (c) would be described in paragraph (b) of this section is less than $50,000. For purposes of this paragraph (c), specified parties that are related (within the meaning of § 1.267A-5(a)(14)) are treated as a single specified party.
[T.D. 9896, 85 FR 19836, Apr. 8, 2020]
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 46 (Wednesday, March 10, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 11151]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-5042]



[[Page 11151]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13630-000]


Lewis County Development Corporation; Notice of Preliminary 
Permit Application Accepted for Filing and Soliciting Comments, Motions 
To Intervene, and Competing Applications

March 3, 2010.
    On November 16, 2009, Lewis County Development Corporation (Lewis 
County Corp) filed an application for a preliminary permit, pursuant to 
section 4(f) of the Federal Power Act, proposing to study the 
feasibility of the Croghan Dam Hydroelectric Project No. 13630, to be 
located at the existing Croghan Dam, on the on the Beaver River, in 
Lewis County, New York.
    The proposed project would consist of: (1) An existing concrete 
gravity dam structure consisting of an 11.5-foot-high by 120-foot-long 
section, and a 9.5-foot-high by 103-foot-long section; (2) an existing 
approximately 121-acre impoundment with a normal water surface 
elevation of 817.7 feet mean sea level; (3) a new 75-foot-long by 35-
foot-wide powerhouse; (4) two new turbine generator units for a total 
installed capacity of 450 kilowatts; (5) a new approximately 360-foot-
long, 13.2-kilovolt transmission line; and (6) appurtenant facilities. 
The proposed project would operate in run-of-river mode and generate an 
estimated average annual generation of 2,773 megawatt-hours.
    Lewis County Corp: Larry Dolhof, Lewis County Development 
Corporation, P.O. Box 704, Lyons Falls, NY 13368, (315) 348-4066.
    FERC Contact: Michael Watts, (202) 502-6123.
    Deadline for filing comments, motions to intervene, competing 
applications (without notices of intent), or notices of intent to file 
competing applications: 60 days from the issuance of this notice. 
Comments, motions to intervene, notices of intent, and competing 
applications may be filed electronically via the Internet. See 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``eFiling'' link. If unable to be filed electronically, 
documents may be paper-filed. To paper-file, an original and eight 
copies should be mailed to: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary, Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426. For 
more information on how to submit these types of filings please go to 
the Commission's Web site located at http://www.ferc.gov/filing-comments.asp. More information about this project can be viewed or 
printed on the ``eLibrary'' link of Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/elibrary.asp. Enter the docket number (P-
13630) in the docket number field to access the document. For 
assistance, call toll-free 1-866-208-3372.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-5042 Filed 3-9-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
United States Steel Corporation – Minntac

Response to U. S. EPA Section 114 Request

April 24, 2012

Item 4

For the time period January 1, 2007 to December 31, 2011, if coal was used as a fuel

source at the facility, provide documentation of the average sulfur content for coal

used by each specific indurating furnace at the facility.

Person(s): that provided information used or considered in responding to the question or 

were consulted in the preparation of the response: 

Teresa Simetkosky

Answer:

Year % Sulfur

2007 0.5

2008 0.45

2009 0.43

2010 0.49

2011 0.47

Minntac is only permitted to utilize coal as a fuel source in the kilns on Line 6 & 7. Minntac and 

Keetac utilize the same coal source. The analysis of the % sulfur is performed in the Minntac 

Quality Assurance Laboratory as a monthly composite comprised of daily samples.