alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 13 (Thursday, January 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 3209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1305]


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

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary


Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

ACTION:  Notice.

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

    The Department of Defense has submitted to OMB for clearance, the 
following proposal for collection of information under the provisions 
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35).
    Title, Associated Form, and OMB Number: Application and Agreement 
for Establishment of a National Defense Cadet Agreement; DA Form 3126-
1; OMB Number 0702--
    Type of Request: New Collection.
    Number of Respondents: 35.
    Responses Per Respondent: 1.
    Annual Responses: 35.
    Average Burden Per Response: 1 hour.
    Annual Burden Hours: 35.
    Needs and Uses: Educational institutions desiring to host a 
National Defense Cadet Corps Unit (NDCC) may apply by using a DA Form 
3126-1. The DA Form 3126-1 documents the agreement and becomes a 
contract signed by both the secondary institution and the U.S. 
Government. This form provides information on the school's facilities 
and states specific conditions if a NDCC unit is placed at the 
institution. The data provided on the application is used to determine 
which school will be selected.
    Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Government; Not-For-Profit 
Institutions.
    Frequency: On occasion.
    Respondent's Obligation: Required to Obtain or Retain Benefits.
    OMB Desk Officer: Mr. Edward C. Springer.
    Written comments and recommendations on the proposed information 
collection should be sent to Mr. Springer at the Office of Management 
and Budget, Desk Officer for DoD, Room 10236, New Executive Office 
Building, Washington, DC 20503.
    DOD Clearance Officer: Mr. Robert Cushing.
    Written requests for copies of the information collection proposal 
should be sent to Mr. Cushing, WHS/DIOR, 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, 
Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302.


    Dated: January 12, 2000.
Patricia L. Toppings,
Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison Officer, Department of Defense.
[FR Doc. 00-1305 Filed 1-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 5001-10-M
No. 76-1357.

#### Columbia Typographical Union No. 101, International Typographical Union of North America, AFL-CIO *v.*National Labor Relations Board et al.

C. A. D. C. Cir. Certiorari denied.
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________ 

No. 1D17-4274 

_____________________________ 

LAURIE M. COSTELLO, 

Appellant, 

v. 

CITY OF ARCHER, FLORIDA, and

FLORIDA CROSSROADS 

INDUSTRIAL ZONE, LLC, 

Appellees. 

_____________________________ 

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Alachua County. 

Donna M. Keim, Judge. 

February 8, 2019 

PER CURIAM. 

Affirmed. See Malley v. Clay County Zoning Comm'n, 225 So. 

2d 555 (Fla. 1st DCA 1969); see also § 166.041(7), Fla. Stat. (2012). 

LEWIS, MAKAR, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., concur. 
2 

_____________________________ 

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331. 

_____________________________ 

Joseph W. Little, Gainesville, for Appellant. 

S. Scott Walker, Courtney Wilson Johnson, and Patrice Boyes, 

Gainesville, for Appellees.
Pursuant to5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 , th e court has determined that this opinionsho uld not * be publishe d an d is not precede nt except und er the limit ed circu mstance s set forth in 5 T H C IR . R. 47.5 .4. 

### INTHE UNI TED S TATESCOU RT OFAPPEALS

FORTHE FIFTH CIRCU IT

N o. 08- 20560 C onfer enc e Cal endar
UN I TE D S TA TE S OF AM ERI CA, P l ai n t i f f

- A pp el l ee
v. G U ST AV O SA N C H E Z; al so know n as G ust avo Sanchez S anchez , al so k now n as G abri elJi m en ez, al so kn ow n as G abri ez Ji m en ez, al so kn o w n a s G abri ez Ji m em ez , D e fe nda nt
- Appe l l ant

A pp ealf

rom t h e U n i t ed S t ates D i st ri ctC ou rt f or t h e S ou t h ern D i st ri ctof T exas U SDC N o . 4 : 0 8
- CR- 2 2 6
- ALL
B ef ore H IG G IN B O T H A M , D AV IS, an d C L E M E N T , C i rcui tJu dg es. P E R C U R I A M: * Th e Feder alP ubl i c D ef enderappoi nt ed t o re pre se nt G ust avo Sanchez has
m o ve d f o rl e av e t o w i t hdr aw and has f i l e d ab r i e f

i n a c c o r da nc e w i t h A nder s v. C a lif o rn ia , 3 86 U
. S. 7 38 ( 19 67 )
. S an chez has no tf i l e d a r e s po ns e . Our i nde pe nde ntr e vi e w o f t he r e c o r d a nd c o uns e l ’ s b r i e f di s c l o s e s no no nf

r i vo l o us is s u e fo ra p p e a l. A c c o r d in g ly , co u n s e l’ s m o tio n fo rle a v e t o w i t h d r a w is United States Court of App eals

Fifth Circuit 

### F I L E D Aug ust18, 2009 Cha rl es R. F ulb ru g e II I ClerkN o. 08- 20560

2 G RANTED, c o u n s e l i s e x c u s e d f r o m f u r t h e r r e s p o n s ib i l i t i e s h e r e i n , a nd t he A P P E A L IS D IS M IS S E D
. S ee5 T H C IR . R. 42. 2.
EX-10.1



 Exhibit 10.1 
  

			
	 Enbridge Pipelines Inc.
 3000, 425-1st Street SW
 Calgary, AB T2P 3L8
	 	





 Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership 

1100 Louisiana Street, Suite 3300 
 Houston, TX 77002 

January 30, 2015 
 United Refining Company and 

Kiantone Pipeline Corporation 
 823 11th Ave. 
 New York, New York 10019 

Attention: J. Nelson Happy 
  

			
	 Subject:
	  	Amendment to the Letter Agreement between Enbridge Pipelines Inc., Enbridge Energy Limited Partnership, United Refining Company and Kiantone Pipeline Corporation dated July 31, 2014 (the “Letter
Agreement”)

 The parties agree that Section C.1 of the Letter Agreement shall be amended by replacing “January 31, 2015” with
“February 14, 2015.” 
 Please acknowledge your agreement to the terms and conditions contained herein by signing the enclosed duplicate copy in
the space provided below and returning the acknowledged copy to the undersigned. 
  

									
	ENBRIDGE ENERGY, LIMITED PARTNERSHIP BY ENBRIDGE PIPELINES (LAKEHEAD) L.L.C. ITS GENERAL PARTNER	 		 	ENBRIDGE PIPELINES INC.
					
	Per:	 	 /s/ Chris Kaitson
	 		 	Per:	 	 /s/ Paul Fisher

		 	 Chris Kaitson
 Vice President – U.S.
Law
	 		 		 	 Paul Fisher
 Vice President



									
					
		 		 		 	Per:	 	 /s/ Kent Cornelius

		 		 		 		 	 Kent Cornelius
 V.P. Major Projects
Execution


  

									
	UNITED REFINING COMPANY	 		 	KIANTONE PIPELINE CORPORATION
					
	Per:	 	 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis
	 		 	Per:	 	 /s/ John A. Catsimatidis

		 	 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
	 		 		 	 John A. Catsimatidis
 Chairman &
CEO
October 4, 2001


Mr. Burton G. Friedlander
Friedlander Capital Management Corp.
104 Field Point Rd.
Greenwich, CT  06830

         Re:      eNote.com Inc.

Dear Burt:

     The  purpose of this  letter is to confirm  the  agreement  of  Friedlander
Capital  Management  Corp. to extend the maturity date of each of the 8% Secured
Convertible  Notes issued by eNote.com Inc. in favor of the  undersigned,  which
consist of notes  numbered B1 and B3 through B30  (collectively,  the  'Notes'),
until  December 31, 2001, and to waive any and all defaults on the Notes through
the date of this Letter.
                                                     Very truly yours,


                                                     ENOTE.COM INC.


                                                     By: /s/ Michael T. Grennan

Acknowledged and Agreed
FRIEDLANDER CAPITAL MANAGEMENT CORP.

By: /s/ Burton G. Friedlander
§ 459.5 Rules to be construed liberally. ( a ) The regulations in this subchapter may be construed liberally to effectuate the purposes and provisions of the CSRA or FSA.
( b ) When an act is required or allowed to be done at or within a specified time, the Director may at any time order the period altered where it shall be manifest that strict adherence will work surprise or injustice or interfere with the proper effectuation of the CSRA or FSA.
[45 FR 15165, Mar. 7, 1980. Redesignated at 50 FR 31311, Aug. 1, 1985, as amended at 78 FR 8027, Feb. 5, 2012]
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 862 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street in Des 

Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 13, 2007 

Mr. HARKIN (for himself and Mr. GRASSLEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 

Public Works 

A BILL 

To designate the Federal building located at 210 Walnut 

Street in Des Moines, Iowa, as the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal 

Building’’. 

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

3 SECTION 1. DESIGNATION. 

4 The Federal building located at 210 Walnut Street 

5 in Des Moines, Iowa, shall be known and designated as 

6 the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 

7 SEC. 2. REFERENCES. 

8 Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 

9 paper, or other record of the United States to the Federal 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
2 

•S 862 IS

1 building referred to in section 1 shall be deemed to be 

2 a reference to the ‘‘Neal Smith Federal Building’’. 

Æ 


pwalker on PROD1PC71 with BILLS
MARTINEZ ALBERTO
,
Petitioner,

v.

J ULIE JONES, S ECRETARY, FLORIDA DEPT. OF CORRECTIONS , and W ASHINGTON STATE DEPT

. OF CORRECTIONS
, Respondent s

. ___________________________/ IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINA L UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 16

- 0981

Opinion filed August 18, 2016.

Petition for Belated Appeal

-- O riginal Jurisdiction

. Martinez Alberto, pro se , Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Att orney General, Tallahassee , for Respondent Julie Jones, Florida Department of Corrections

. No appearance for Respondent Washington Department of Corrections.

PER CURIAM.

DENIED. See Powell v. Florida Department of Corrections , 727 So. 2d 1103

(Fla. 1st DCA 1999); see also Snelson v. Snelson , 440 So. 2d 477 (Fla. 5th DCA

1983).

ROBERTS, C.J., ROWE and BILBREY, JJ., CONCUR.
[No. 50406-1-I.

Division One.

November 12, 2002.]

#### The State of Washington, *Respondent,*v. Antonio Gabriel Endres, *Appellant.*

Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court for King County, No. 01-1-00884-2, Donald D. Haley, J., and Kenneth Comstock, J. Pro Tern., entered September 5, 2001. *Remanded*by unpublished per curiam opinion.
#### § 2705.5 Access to requested information to the individual.

As soon as practicable after verification of identity the Commission shall disclose to the individual the information contained in the record which pertains to that individual.
Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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 results of operations of the Company as of the date and for
the periods expressed in the Report.
 By:
    
    /s/ John B. Gerlach, Jr.

John B. Gerlach, Jr.Chief Executive OfficerAugust 25, 2010By:
    
    /s/ John L. Boylan

John L. BoylanChief Financial OfficerAugust 25, 2010
§ 4281.17 Asset valuation methods—in general. ( a ) *General rule.* The plan sponsor shall value plan assets as of the valuation date, using the valuation methods prescribed by this section and § 4281.18 (regarding outstanding claims for withdrawal liability), and deducting administrative liabilities in accordance with paragraph (c) of this section.
( b ) *Assets other than withdrawal liability claims.* The plan sponsor shall value any plan asset (other than an outstanding claim for withdrawal liability) by such method or methods as the plan sponsor reasonably believes most accurately determine fair market value.
( c ) *Adjustment for administrative liabilities.* In determining the total value of plan assets, the plan sponsor shall subtract all plan liabilities, other than liabilities to pay benefits. For this purpose, any obligation to repay financial assistance received from the PBGC under section 4261 of ERISA is a plan liability other than a liability to pay benefits. The obligation to repay financial assistance shall be valued by determining the value of the scheduled payments in the same manner as prescribed in § 4281.18(a) for valuing claims for withdrawal liability.
#### Standish *vs.*Chandler.

A *bill of particulars*describing a *joint amd several*note made by the *plaintiff*and *another person,*as a note made by the plaintiff, is sufficient to entitle the defendant to give the note in evidence under a notice of set off.

This was an action of *assumpsit,*tried at the Washington circuit in June, 1838, before the Hon. John Willard, one of the circuit judges.

After the plaintiff, *George Chandler,*had proved his demand, the defendant, under a proper notice of set off, offered in evidence a promissory note in the following words: “ Six months from date we jointly and *severally*promise to pay Lucretia Harris or bearer one hundred and sixty-seven dollars and sixty-five cents, value received, with interest. South Hartford, 17th April, 1835. Samuel Standish, Jr. *Charles Chandler.”*The plaintiff objected to receiving the note in evidence, on the ground that it was not described in the bill of particulars which the defendant had furnished of his demand. The part of the bill which relates to the note, is in the following words: “ One note for $167, 65, dated South Hartford, April 17,1835, payable to Lucretia Harris or bearer in six months from date [ *512 ] with interest, signed Samuel Standish, *Jr.” The judge decided that the note was inadmissible under the bill of particulars, and directed the jury to find a verdict for the amount of the plaintiff’s demand. Yerdict accordingly. The defendant now moves for a new trial.

*B. F. Agan,*for defendant.

*J. H. Boyd,*for plaintiff.

Bronson, J.

*By the Court,*If *George Chandler*had been plaintiff, and was suing on the note which he offered to set off, it would have been sufficient, in declaring, to allege that Standish made his promissory note and thereby promised, &c., without taking any notice of the fact that there was *another*maker and that the promise was *joint and several.*The legal effect of the contract was, a several promise by each maker, as well as a joint promise by both. The note was set out according to its legal effect in the *512defendant’s bill of particulars, and I am unable to discover any variance whatever. It was described with great particularity. The place where made, date, amount, name of payee, negotiability, time of payment, &c., were all set forth with entire accuracy. If the plaintiff thought it insufficient, he should have applied for a more particular account of the set off, or a literal copy of the note which the defendant proposed to give in evidence.

I cannot suppose that there was any design to mislead the plaintiff, or that he was surprised by the offer to give the note in evidence. There was no suggestion that he *alone*had ever given a note answering to the description in the bill of particulars, and it is too much to presume such a fact for the purpose of defeating a set off which is apparently legal.

New trial granted.
(75 South. 632)

#### FORBUS v. STATE.

(5 Div. 256.)

(Court of Appeals of Alabama.

May 8, 1917.)

Criminal Law &wkey;»1094— Appeal — Failure to File Bill of Exceptions.

Where the time for filing- bill of exceptions has passed, the Attorney General’s motion to dismiss the appeal will be granted.

[Ed. Note. — For other cases, see Criminal Law, Cent. Dig. §§ 2807, 3204.]'

Appeal from Circuit Court, Elmore County; Gaston Gunter, Judge.

Dee Forbus was convicted of an offense, and he appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

W. L. Martin, Atty. Gen., for the State.

BRICKEN, J.

In this case judgment of conviction was had on September 14, 1916, and the appeal from said judgment was taken on that same date. It is here submitted on motion to 'dismiss; and, as the time for filing bill of exceptions has passed, the motion of the Attorney General to dismiss the appeal is well taken, and the appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

Appeal dismissed.
#### In the Matter of American League Baseball Club of New York, Inc., Appellant, against Frank J. Taylor, as Comptroller of the City of New York, Respondent.

Argued March 23, 1937;

decided April 27, 1937.

*476
      *Byron Clark*and *Byron Clark, Jr.,*for appellant.

*Paul Windels, Corporation Counsel (Meyer Bernstein, Osear S. Cox*and *Sol Charles Levine*of counsel), for respondent.

Order affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: Crane, Ch. J., Lehman, O’Brien, Hubbs, Loughran, Finch and Rippey, JJ.
#### § 452.95 Absentee ballots.

Where the union knows in advance that a substantial number or a particular segment of the members will not be able to exercise their right to vote in person, as, for example, when access to a polling place is impracticable for many members because of shipping assignments, absentee ballots or other means of voting must be made available.[45] In the event absentee ballots are necessary the organization must give its members reasonable notice of the availability of such ballots.[46]

###### Footnotes -
  452.95

[45] *Goldberg* v. *Marine Cooks and Stewards Union,* 204 F. Supp. 844 (N.D. Cal. 1962).

[46] *Wirtz* v. *Local Union 262, Glass Bottle Blowers Association,* 290 F. Supp. 965 (N.D. Calif. 1968).
CSTATEOFDELAWAREDEPARTMENTOFNATURALRESOURCES &ENVIRONMENTALCONTROL DIVISION

OF AIR

& WASTE MANAGEMENTAIRQUALITYMANAGEMENT

655 S. Bay Road, Suite

NTELEPHONE: (302) 739- 9402SECTION

Dover, DE 19901

Fx No.: (302) 739-3106 June 17, 2010

RECEIVED Ms. Diana Esher (3APOO) Director

010 Air Protection Division

3AP40 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency Region

III 1650 Arch Street Philadelphia,

PA 19103 Dear Ms. r:
J,
4‘-— In Septber 1998, Delaware adopted
the Standards

of Performance

for Hospital/Medical/Infectious

Waste Incinerators (HMIWI) under Section

29 of
7 DE Admin Code 1120 of State of Delaware “Regulations Governing

the Control

of Air Pollution”.

On September 17, 1998, the State submitted

a complete
and approvable Section 111(d)/129 plan (HMIWI plan) to enforce the regulatory provisions

of this adoption. The Administrator approved Delaware’s HMIWI plan; publishing

its final rule in the Federal Register
(65 FR 20086)
on April 14, 2000. The final rule, found

at 40 CFR Part 62 Paragraphs 62.1975-1977, applies

to all Delaware existing HMIWI
for which construction

was commenced on or before June 20, 1996. The final rule became effective

on June 13, 2000. The three designated sources identified

in Delaware’s HMIWI Plan submittal have shut down and all incinerators were dismantled

and removed

as indicated below.PRINTEDONRECYCLEDPAPER Designated source
Located in... Dismantled in... E.I. duPont

de Nemours

& Co., Inc. Wilmington

1999 Experimental Station Kent General Hospital

Dover

2006 Nanticoke Memorial Hospital
Seaford

1998j Ve1a(,aJze 7ood T(a’w Vefte#id4

otC’

CMs.DianaEsherJune17,2010PageTwoTherearenownoexistingdesignatedsourcessubjecttotheDelawareHMIWIplan,orundertheprovisionsof40CFR60.32e(a),Designatedfacilities,asamendedonOctober6,2009.Accordingly,DelawarerequestsEPA’swithdrawaloftheDelawareHMIWIplanapproval,whichisstipulatedat40CFRPart62,Paragraphs62.1975-1977,andrequestsapprovalofthisnegativedeclaration.Asalways,feelfreetocontactmeorRonAmirikian,PlanningManager,(302)739-9402,ifyouhaveanyquestionsconcerningthisrequest.Sincerely, AcAuMirzakhalili,P.E.Administratorcc:WalterWilkie,EPARegion3JamesTopsale,EPARegion3RonaldAmirikian
Exhibit 32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Triad Hospitals, Inc. (the Company) for the
quarter ended June 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, W. Stephen Love, Chief Financial 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 results of operations of the Company.



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ W. STEPHEN LOVE    
|W. Stephen Love        
|Chief Financial Officer
|August 8, 2006         

This certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18 of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, or otherwise subject to liability pursuant to that section. This certification shall not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, except to the extent that the Company specifically incorporates it by reference. A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be
retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule  contains  summary financial  information extracted  from the
Balance  Sheet for Little  Squaw Gold  Mining Company  (a development stage
company) at December 31, 1999 (audited) and the Statement of Income for the
year ended December 31, 1999 (audited) and is qualified  in its entirety by
reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          17,353
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      398
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     25,871
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                43,622
<PP&E>                                         431,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                (167,603)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 307,622
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          281,634
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       846,850
<OTHER-SE>                                    (820,862)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   307,622
<SALES>                                          1,185
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 1,185
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                58,997
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (57,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (57,812)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (57,812)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.007)









</TABLE>