alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 49561.

#### Protests 47272-K, etc., of Howatt Brokerage Co. et al. (Los Angeles).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following Abstracts 36724 and 38185 an allowance was made by the court for the weight of the paper, or foil, or both, in which the cheese in question was wrapped.
CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934
   RULE 13a-14(a) OR 15d-14(a)
   I, Brian Alexander, certify that:
  1.
I have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB of Texhoma Energy, Inc.;  
  2.
Based on my knowledge, this 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.
I am 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:  
  a.
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;  
  b.
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  
  c.
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  
  5.
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):  
  a.
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  
  b.
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.  Dated: January 13, 2005 By: /s/ Brian Alexander
   Acting Chief Financial Officer
MEMORANDUM

SUBJECT: March 18, 2011 Meeting with Portland Cement Association on the 2011 NHSM

Final Rule

FROM: Tab Tesnau Office of Resource Conservation and Recovery

TO: Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-RCRA-2008-0329

On March 18, 2011, EPA met with representatives of the Portland Cement Association (PCA) to

discuss their issues and concerns with the fina l rule entitled, “Identif ication of Non-Hazardous Secondary Materials That are Solid Waste,” wh ich was signed and made publically available prior to the meeting and was published in the Federal Register on March 21, 2011 (76 FR 15456). This is referred to as the 2011 NHSM Final Rule.

During that meeting, PCA representatives discusse d their perspectives on the recently finalized definition of solid waste rule as applied under Section 129 of the Clean Air Act. They also expressed concerns with the rule’s impact on cement production and the use of fuels and ingredients in cement kilns. Th e discussed factory scrap tires a nd how they are not included in the provisions in the regulatory text.

Attachments: For meeting details, refer to the attached m eeting materials provided by the Portland Cement

Association members.

EPA asked clarifying questions rega rding the information presented.

Expected Meeting Attendees:

Andy O'Hare, PCA Dick Stoll, Foley and Lardner

Other PCA members

Chair: Lisa Feldt, EPAJim Berlow, EPA Wendy Blake, EPA Janet McCabe, EPA John Michaud, EPA Suzanne Rudzinski, EPA Matt Straus, EPA
EXHIBIT 7.1


<TABLE>
                               AES DRAX HOLDINGS LIMITED
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges
                              ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                1999(1)      1999(1)      2000(2)      2000(2)      2001(2)      2001(2)      2002(2)      2002(2)
                                UK GAAP      US GAAP      UK GAAP      US GAAP      UK GAAP      US GAAP      UK GAAP      US GAAP
                              (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000  (pound),000
<S>                              <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>           <C>        <C>          <C>
Income/(loss) from
   continuing
   operations before
   income                        17,638       20,308       33,950       87,118       (7,970)       18,342     (751,051)    (129,732)
   taxes
Fixed Charges:
   Interest on long-term
   and
   short-term debt
   including                     13,158       16,356      156,319      156,319      170,788       126,914      180,087      131,717
   amortization of debt
   expense
Total fixed charges              13,158       16,356      156,319      156,319      170,788       126,914      180,087      131,717
Earnings before income
   taxes and fixed charges       30,796       36,664      190,269      243,437      162,818       145,256     (570,964)       1,985
Ratio of earnings to fixed
   charges                         2.34         2.24         1.22         1.56         0.95          1.14        (3.17)        0.02
</TABLE>

(1)  Seven week period to 31 December 1999
(2)  Year ended 31 December
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                            W-H ENERGY SERVICES, INC.
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

      In connection with the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended
June 30, 2005 filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey L. Tepera, the Chief Financial Officer of W-H
Energy Services, Inc. (the "Company"), hereby certify, to my knowledge, 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/ Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                              ---------------------------------
                                              Name: Jeffrey L. Tepera
                                              Date: August 5, 2005

This certification is furnished solely to comply with the requirements of Rule
13a-14(b) under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
is subject to the knowledge standard contained therein and shall not be deemed
to be a part of the Report or "filed" for any purpose whatsoever.
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-14-00361-CV

In re Robert Galvin

T. L., Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Family and Protective Services, Appellee

FROM THE 98TH DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 

NO. D-1-FM-13-002211, THE HONORABLE SCOTT H. JENKINS, JUDGE PRESIDING

O R D E R T O S H O W C A U S E

PER CURIAM

This is a contempt proceeding ancillary to the appeal of T. L. The subject of this 

proceeding is Robert Galvin, appellant’s attorney.

Appellant filed her notice of appeal on June 4, 2014, and her brief was due July 

14, 2014. On July 21, 2014, we ordered counsel to file appellant’s brief no later than August 5, 

2014. To date, appellant’s brief has not been filed. 

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that Robert Galvin shall appear in person before 

this Court on Thursday, August 28, 2014, at 1:30 p.m., in the Third Court of Appeals 

courtroom, located on the first floor of the Price Daniel, Sr. Building, 209 West 14th Street, in 

Austin, Travis County, Texas, to show cause why he should not be held in contempt and have 
sanctions imposed for his failure to obey our July 21, 2014 order. This order to show cause will 

be withdrawn and Galvin will be relieved of his obligation to appear before this Court as ordered

above if the Clerk of this Court receives appellant’s brief on or before August 26, 2014.

It is ordered on August 12, 2014.

Before Justices Puryear, Pemberton and Field
# C_2015429EN.01002801.xml

| 21.12.2015 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 429/28 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

21.12.2015

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 429/28

---

Action brought on 22 October 2015 — CEVA v Commission

(Case T-601/15)

(2015/C 429/36)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Centre d’étude et de valorisation des algues SA (CEVA) (Pleubian, France) (represented by: E. De Boissieu, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Commission

Defendant:

Form of order sought

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the General Court should:

| — | order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement; |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay CEVA the amount of EUR 59  103,21, in accordance with the Grant Agreement;

| — | order the Commission to pay all the costs. |
| --- | --- |

—

order the Commission to pay all the costs.

Pleas in law and main arguments

Pleas in law and main arguments

With this application, the applicant seeks an order for the payment by the Commission of the first instalment of the financial contribution granted in implement of the SEABIOPLAS contract and the Grant Agreement, concerning a research and technological development project in the field of ‘Algae grown from sustainable aquaculture as raw material for biodegradable bioplastics’, following the offsetting of that amount by the Commission of its own motion by way of recovery of the sums paid to the applicant under the PROTOP contract, in accordance with the findings of a financial audit by OLAF.

In support of the action, the applicant relies, essentially, on a single plea in law, alleging errors committed by the Commission which prevented the recovery by offsetting claims against sums paid to the applicant by the Commission. The applicant claims, in essence, that the conditions for recovery by offsetting were not met. First, the claim of the Commission against the applicant was neither certain, nor payable. Second, the Commission had not complied with Article 87(2) (recovery by offsetting) and Article 88 (recovery procedure failing voluntary payment) of Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No 1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the rules of application of Regulation (EU, Euratom) No 966/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the financial rules applicable to the general budget of the Union. Finally, the applicant claims that the Commission has no contractual claim against it. In the alternative, in the event that the Court holds that the offsetting is valid, the applicant submits that the refund of the total amount of the grant it received is contrary to the principle of proportionality and amounts to the unjust enrichment of the Commission.

---
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 1 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 2 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 3 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 4 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 5 of 6
Case 2:03-cv-05020-EL Document 230-2 Filed 12/23/2009 Page 6 of 6
Exhibit 3.2

                            CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT
                                       OF
                      RESTATED CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION
                                       OF
                           MIDWEST BANC HOLDINGS, INC.


         Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc., a corporation organized and existing under
and by virtue of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware,

         DOES HEREBY CERTIFY:

         FIRST: That the Board of Directors of Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc., by
the vote of a majority of its members at a meeting duly held and constituted,
duly adopted resolutions setting forth a proposed amendment to the Restated
Certificate of Incorporation of said corporation, declaring said amendment to be
advisable and calling a meeting of the stockholders of said corporation for
consideration thereof. The resolution setting forth the proposed amendment is as
follows:

                  RESOLVED, that the first paragraph of Section 4 of the
         Restated Certificate of Incorporation of the Corporation be amended to
         read in its entirety as follows:

                           4. The total number of shares of stock which the
                  corporation shall have authority to issue is twenty-five
                  million (25,000,000), divided into two classes as follows: one
                  million (1,000,000) of which shall be preferred stock, $0.01
                  par value ("Preferred Stock"), and twenty-four million
                  (24,000,000) of which shall be common stock, $0.01 par value
                  ("Common Stock").

         SECOND: That such amendment has been duly adopted in accordance with
provisions of the General Corporation Law of the State of Delaware by the
affirmative vote of the holders of a majority of all outstanding stock entitled
to vote at a meeting of stockholders.

         THIRD: That the aforesaid amendment was duly adopted in accordance with
the applicable provisions of Section 242 of the General Corporation Law of the
State of Delaware.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, Midwest Banc Holdings, Inc. has caused this
Certificate to be signed and attested as of July 1, 2002.

                                       MIDWEST BANC HOLDINGS, INC.


                                       By:  /s/ Brad A. Luecke
                                            ------------------------------------
                                            Brad A. Luecke, President
ATTEST:


By: /s/ Daniel Nagle
    ------------------------------
    Daniel Nagle, Secretary
#### Calvin S. Lane *vs.*Albert E. Anderson et al., Executors of the estate of John Kern.

Cumberland.

Opinion, August 1, 1942.

*Milan J. Smith,*for the plaintiff.

*Albert E. Anderson,*

*Wilfred A. Hay,*for the defendants.

Sitting: Sturgis, C. J., Thaxter, Hudson, Manser, Worster, Murchie, JJ.

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff herein, after jury verdict against him, seeks *133new trial on general motion. The process is assumpsit to recover for services allegedly rendered to defendants’ decedent in his lifetime.

On the record it cannot be said to be in dispute that plaintiff did render the services set forth in his account or that the charges made therefor were reasonable, but there is a clear conflict in the evidence as to whether such services were rendered for the decedent and at his request or for a corporation which was organized, or intended to be organized, to take title to the .particular property to which the services directly related and as to whether or not the plaintiff was interested with the decedent in that corporation and property. The verdict must be construed as importing a finding by the jury that when the services were rendered it was not contemplated that defendants’ decedent should pay for them personally.

The sole basis on which the plaintiff can assert that the verdict is against the law and the evidence is the testimony of one of the sons of the decedent that his parent declared in his lifetime that the bill ought to be paid and that he proposed to take steps to see that it was. The issue was properly presented to the jury and it is not for this Court to say that its finding on this control point was manifestly wrong.

*Motion overruled.*
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project No. 4679-050]

                    On Wednesday, November 8, 2023, Commission staff will hold a technical conference to provide clarification to New York Power Authority regarding Commission staff's additional information request (AIR) issued August 7, 2023, for the Vischer Ferry Hydroelectric Project No. 4679.[1] 

The conference will be held via teleconference beginning at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time. Discussion topics for the technical conference include: (1) Engineering analysis of project-related flooding impacts (AIR number 2), and (2) Stability analysis and revised Supporting Design Report (AIR number 3).

                    All local, state, and federal agencies, Indian tribes, and other interested parties are invited to participate. There will be no transcript of the conference, but a summary of the meeting will be prepared for the project record. If you are interested in participating in the meeting you must contact Jody Callihan at (202) 502-8278 or                     *jody.callihan@ferc.gov*                     by November 6, 2023 to receive specific instructions on how to participate.                

Dated: October 25, 2023.

Kimberly D. Bose,

Secretary.

# Footnotes

1.                             Commission staff's letter requesting additional information is available at:                         *https://elibrary.ferc.gov/​eLibrary/​filelist?​accession_​number=​20230807-3020&​optimized=​false.*
        Back to Citation      

[FR Doc. 2023-24038 Filed 10-31-23; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JACOB BOWMAN,

 Petitioner - Appellant,

 v.

KEVIN MILYARD, Warden for Sterling

Corr. Facility,

 Respondent - Appellee.

No. 09-35255

D.C. No. 2:08-cv-00743-RAJ

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Washington

Richard A. Jones, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 1, 2010

Seattle, Washington

Before: ALARCÓN, W. FLETCHER and RAWLINSON, Circuit Judges.

Petitioner-Appellant Jacob Bowman appeals the district court’s decision

denying his habeas petition. We affirm.

FILED

FEB 12 2010

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2

The statute of limitations began to run on February 5, 2001, as soon as

Bowman’s conviction became final on direct appeal. Bowman’s state court

Personal Restraint Petition was not filed for more than a year after that date. The

Washington Supreme Court’s decision, In re Bowman, 172 P.3d 681 (Wash. 2007),

was not a “fact” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1)(D). Neither Redd v.

McGrath, 343 F.3d 1077, 1081-82 (9th Cir. 2003), nor Shelby v. Bartlett, 391 F.3d

1061, 1062 (9th Cir. 2004), supports Bowman’s contention that the Washington

Supreme Court’s decision served as the factual predicate in his case. Bowman’s

petition was not timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(d)(1).

Bowman has not met his burden of showing that equitable tolling is

appropriate in this case. He has not demonstrated that any extraordinary

circumstances beyond his control prevented him from filing a timely petition. See

Pace v. DiGuglielmo, 544 U.S. 408, 418 (2005); Harris v. Carter, 515 F.3d 1051,

1055 (9th Cir. 2008).

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE SM&A
CORPORATION UNAUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE NINE MONTHS ENDED SEPTEMBER
30, 1998.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                           1,936
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   22,967
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (96)
<INVENTORY>                                        174
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                26,026
<PP&E>                                           8,905
<DEPRECIATION>                                  (6,425)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  68,152
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           10,250
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           165
<OTHER-SE>                                      53,446
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    53,611
<SALES>                                         46,405
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                46,405
<CGS>                                           27,118
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   37,522
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                (1,253)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    10
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 102
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,024
<INCOME-TAX>                                     4,208
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,816
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,816
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
<FN>
<F1>FOR PURPOSES OF THIS EXHIBIT PRIMARY MEANS BASIC
</FN>
        

</TABLE>