alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 7, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 10198]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-3982]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-308-000]


North Baja Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC Gas 
Tariff

February 28, 2007.
    Take notice that on February 23, 2007, North Baja Pipeline, LLC 
(NBP) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 130 and Fourth Revised Sheet No. 
134, to become effective March 26, 2007.
    NBP states that these sheets are being submitted to modify the rate 
of interest NBP pays on cash security deposits.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed in accordance with the provisions of 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's regulations (18 CFR 154.210). 
Anyone filing an intervention or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant. Anyone filing an intervention or protest on 
or before the intervention or protest date need not serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#5c1a190e1f1332303532390f292c2c332e281c3a392e3f723b332a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d3959681909cbdbfbabdb680a6a3a3bca1a793b5b6a1b0fdb4bca5">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Magalie R. Salas,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-3982 Filed 3-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
No. 50487.

#### Protests 985530-G, etc., of Stephen Rug Mills (New York).

Opinion by

Kincheloe, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise is the same in all material respects as that passed upon in *Stephen Rug Mills*v. *United States*(32 C. C. P. A. 110, C. A. D. 293), and by the court’s decision on remand in Abstract 50056. In accordance therewith the protests were sustained as claimed.
# EUR-Lex - 52007AP0092 - EN

Important legal notice

*|*

# 52007AP0092

**European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 March 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning structural business statistics (COM(2006)0066 - C6-0063/2006 - 2006/0020(COD)) **

*
Official Journal 027 E , 31/01/2008 P. 0139 - 0139 *

P6_TA(2007)0092

Structural business statistics ***I

European Parliament legislative resolution of 29 March 2007 on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning structural business statistics (COM(2006)0066 — C6-0063/2006 — 2006/0020(COD))

(Codecision procedure: first reading)

The European Parliament,

- having regard to the Commission proposal to the European Parliament and the Council (COM(2006)0066) [1],

- having regard to Article 251(2) and Article 285(1) of the EC Treaty, pursuant to which the Commission submitted the proposal to Parliament (C6-0063/2006),

- having regard to Rule 51 of its Rules of Procedure,

- having regard to the report of the Committee on Economic and Monetary Affairs (A6-0062/2007),

1. Approves the Commission proposal as amended;

2. Calls on the Commission to refer the matter to Parliament again if it intends to amend its proposal substantially or replace it with another text;

3. Instructs its President to forward its position to the Council and the Commission.

[1] Not yet published in OJ.

--------------------------------------------------
| (1)   | the                Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of California News Tech for                the                quarter ended September 30, 2005 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 Amended Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB                for                the quarter ended September 30, 2005, fairly presents in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of California                News Tech. |
|-----------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   By:    |   /s/                  Marian Munz             |   |
|--------------------|----------------------------------------------------------|--------|
|  Name:        |  Marian                  Munz                       |
|  Title:       |  Principal                  Executive Officer,      |
|  Date:        |  November                  29, 2005                 |
|   By:    |   /s/                  Robert Jaspar           |
|   Name:  |   Robert                  Jaspar               |
|   Title: |   Principal                  Financial Officer |
|               |                                                     |
|  Date:        |  November                  29, 2005                 |
No. 52995.

#### The Old Quaker Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 119504-K, etc. (Indianapolis).

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

For the reasons stated in *Austin, Nichols & Co., Inc.*v. *United States*(22 Cust. Ct. 33, C. D. 1155), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained. The protests were overruled in all other respects.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 9 (Tuesday, January 16, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 1798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-401]


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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION


Public Federal Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Hearing; Region IV 
Regulatory Fairness Board

    The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Region IV Regulatory 
Fairness Board and the SBA Office of the National Ombudsman will hold a 
public hearing on Wednesday, January 17, 2007, at 10 a.m. The meeting 
will take place at BellSouth Building, Economic Development Theatre, 
(Mezzanine Level), 333 Commerce Street, Nashville, TN 37201. The 
purpose of the meeting is to receive comments and testimony from small 
business owners, small government entities, and small non-profit 
organizations concerning regulatory enforcement and compliance actions 
taken by Federal agencies.
    Anyone wishing to attend or to make a presentation must contact 
Jose Mendez, in writing or by fax, in order to be placed on the agenda. 
Jose Mendez, Agency Event Coordinator, SBA, 409 3rd Street, SW., 
Washington, DC 20416, phone (202) 205-6178 and fax (202) 401-2707, e-
mail: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c983a6baace7a4aca7adacb389baaba8e7aea6bf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="afe5c0dcca81c2cac1cbcad5efdccdce81c8c0d9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    For more information, see our Web site at http://www.sba.gov/ombudsman.

Matthew Teague,
Committee Management Officer.
[FR Doc. E7-401 Filed 1-12-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Before the First Division,

December 31, 1941

No. 46757.

#### Protests 18063-K, etc., of Ciba Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

It was stipulated that 57 percent of the Lyofix DEC (Prep. 6640 Cone. Pat.) consists of merchandise subject to a tax of 3 cents per pound. In accordance therewith the court held that the merchandise is taxable at the rate of *5}ioo*of 3 cents per pound on the entire weight. The protests were sustained accordingly.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FORD MOTOR CREDIT COMPANY,

Plaintiff,

v. NO. CIV. S-04-2344 LKK/JFM

MICHAEL DAUGHERTY,

Defendant.

 /

AND RELATED COUNTER-CLAIM AND 

THIRD-PARTY COMPLAINT.

 /

The court is in receipt of the joint request to amend the

status order. A telephonic Status Conference was held with the

parties on November 30, 2005. At that hearing, the court ordered

that all dates heretofore set are VACATED and the following dates

are SET:

1. Exchange and filing of expert reports: January 15,

2006;

2. Discovery motion cut off: March 9, 2006;

3. Law and Motion cut off: May 9, 2006;

4. Pretrial Conference: August 14, 2006 at 2:30 p.m.;

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 65 Filed 12/05/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

and

5. Trial: November 14, 2006 at 10:30 a.m.

Trial will be by jury. The parties estimate in good faith

that the trial will last approximately five (5) days.

No further extensions will be granted.

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

DATED: December 2, 2005.

/s/Lawrence K. Karlton 

LAWRENCE K. KARLTON

SENIOR JUDGE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

Case 2:04-cv-02344-LKK -JFM Document 65 Filed 12/05/05 Page 2 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KELON MICHEAL WILLIAMS,

Petitioner, No. CIV S-04-2284 GEB DAD P

vs.

D.L. RUNNELS, et al.,

Respondents. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

 /

A recent court order was served on petitioner’s address of record and was returned

by the postal service as undeliverable. The returned mail was marked “Released 09/28/05” and

“Unable to forward.” No updated address has been provided by petitioner. It appears that

petitioner has failed to comply with Local Rule 83-182(f), which requires that a party appearing

in propria persona inform the court of any address change.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for

petitioner’s failure to keep the court apprised of his current address. See Local Rules 83-182(f)

and 11-110.

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States

District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within

thirty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, petitioner may file

Case 2:04-cv-02284-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/25/05 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

2

written objections with the court. A document containing objections should be titled “Objections

to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Petitioner is advised that failure to file

objections within the specified time may, under certain circumstances, waive the right to appeal

the District Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

DATED: October 25, 2005.

DAD:13:bb

will2284.133a

Case 2:04-cv-02284-GEB-DAD Document 25 Filed 10/25/05 Page 2 of 2
(Reap. Dec. 8706)

Entry No. 12625, etc.

#### C. J. Van Houten & Zoon, Inc. *v.*United States

(Decided December 4, 1956)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Donlon, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement fisted in schedule *“A,”*attached hereto and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties:

> IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED THAT—

> 1. The merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of chocolate bars and other chocolate articles exported from Holland, the same in all material respects as those in *Bluefries New York, Inc.*v. *United States,*Reap. Dec. 8470, wherein it was held that cost of production as defined in Sec. 402 (f), Tariff Act of 1930, was the proper basis of value.

> 2. The record in said Reap. Dec. 8470 may be incorporated herein.

> 3. At the time of exportation of the merchandise involved in the appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A, there was no foreign value or export value or United States value for such or similar merchandise as defined in Sec. 402, *585Tariff Act of 1930 as amended, and the cost of production is therefore the proper basis of value.

> 4. The cost of production, as defined in See. 402 (f), (1), (2), (3) and (4) of the Tariff Act of 1930, for the chocolate bars and other chocolate articles listed in Schedule B, attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said Schedule B.

> 5. The appeals for reappraisement listed in said Schedule A are submitted on this stipulation and are limited to the items set forth in said Schedule B, and abandoned as to all other items.

On the agreed facts I find the cost of production, as defined in section 402 (f) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to he the proper basis for determination of value of the merchandise in the appeals for reap-praisement fisted in attached schedule “A,” and that such value for the respective items of merchandise are the costs fisted in the attached schedule “B,” both schedule *“A”*and schedule “B” being made a part of this decision.

The appeals, as they relate to other merchandise, are dismissed. Judgment will he entered accordingly.

Schedule “B”
Order entered July 7, 2014

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-14-00022-CV

ROBERT PERRY, II & ALL OCCUPANTS, Appellants

V.

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 4

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. CC-13-05355-D

ORDER

The reporter’s record in this case is overdue. By order dated April 7, 2014, we ordered 

appellants to file (1) notice that appellants had requested preparation of the reporter’s record, and 

(2) written verification that appellants had paid or made arrangements to pay for the reporter’s 

record or written documentation that appellants have been found entitled to proceed without 

payment of costs. We cautioned appellants that failure to comply with the order by April 18, 

2014 would result in the case being submitted without the reporter’s record. To date, the 

reporter’s record has not been filed and appellants have not provided the required documentation 

or otherwise corresponded with the Court regarding the status of the reporter’s record.
Therefore, we ORDER this appeal submitted without a reporter’s record. Appellants’ 

brief is due THIRTY DAYS from the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN 

JUSTICE
Exhibit





EXHIBIT 10-1



SCHEDULE OF MORTGAGES OR DEEDS OF TRUST GRANTED BY GANNETT SUBSIDIARIES


The following Schedule identifies the material details in which the applicable mortgage or deed of trust granted by a Gannett subsidiary to JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, pursuant to the Credit Agreement, dated as of June 29, 2015, as amended, among Gannett Co., Inc., as Borrower, JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., as Administrative Agent, PNC Bank, N.A. and U.S. Bank National Association, as Co-Syndication Agents, and the other lenders party thereto, differ from the Form of Mortgage (Exhibit 10.24 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2015) or Form of Deed of Trust (Exhibit 10.25 to the Company’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended September 27, 2015) previously filed:




MORTGAGES


	
				
	PROPERTY ADDRESS
	MORTGAGOR NAME
	OWNERSHIP INTEREST
	AMOUNT SECURED

	525 W. Broadway, Louisville, Kentucky
	The Courier-Journal, Inc.
	Fee
	$15,000,000

	6200 Metropolitan Parkway, Sterling Heights, Michigan
	Detroit Newspaper Partnership, L.P.
	Fee
	$14,000,000

	8278 Georgetown Road, Indianapolis, Indiana
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee
	$8,000,000

	950 W. Basin Road, Newcastle, Delaware
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee
	$7,500,000

	1100 Immokalee Road and 9790 Bentgrass Bend, Naples Florida
	Scripps NP Operating, LLC
	Fee
	$20,034,053*

	4101 W. Burnham Street, 332 and 333 W. State Street and 330-340 W. Kilbourn Avenue, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
	Journal Sentinel, Inc.
	Fee
	$28,105,600*






*Contain changes to current security instrument form for state specific provisions required by local law and to conform release/termination provision to language in form of Deed of Trust.




[continued on following page]












EXHIBIT 10-1





DEEDS OF TRUST


	
				
	PROPERTY ADDRESS
	GRANTOR NAME
	OWNERSHIP INTEREST
	AMOUNT SECURED

	200 East Van Buren Street, Phoenix, Arizona
	Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
	Fee
	$30,000,000

	6885 Commercial Drive, Springfield, Virginia
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee
	$23,000,000

	1100 Broadway and others, Nashville, Tennessee
	Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC
	Fee (as to 120 11th Avenue North) and Leasehold (as to 1100 Broadway and others)
	$12,000,000

	22600 N. 19th Avenue, Deer Valley, Arizona
	Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.
	Fee
	$8,700,000

	2332 New Sentinel Drive, Knoxville, Tennessee
	Scripps NP Operating, LLC
	Fee
	$11,400,000*

	495 Union Avenue and 597 Beale Street, Memphis, Tennessee 
	Memphis Publishing Company
	Fee
	$7,260,000*

	151 Factory Stores Drive, Camarillo, California
	Scripps NP Operating, LLC
	Fee
	$18,045,126*






*Contain changes to current security instrument form for state specific provisions required by local law.
No. 54689.

#### Chew Chong Tai & Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 92274-K, etc, (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the-court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-2118

PEPI SCHAFLER, DR.,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

SCOTT D. FIELD, Esquire; REZNICK FEDDER &

SILVERMAN,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

Maryland, at Greenbelt. Alexander Williams, Jr., District Judge.

(CA-01-984-AW)

Submitted: January 15, 2002 Decided: February 5, 2002

Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Doctor Pepi Schafler, Appellant Pro Se. Kenneth Oestreicher,

WHITEFORD, TAYLOR & PRESTON, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Dr. Pepi Schafler appeals the district court’s order granting

the Appellees’ motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).

We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning

of the district court. Schafler v. Field, No. CA-01-984-AW (D. Md.

filed Aug. 22, 2001; entered Aug. 23, 2001). We dispense with oral

argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately

presented in the materials before the court and argument would not

aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
No. 55287.

#### F. Ducharne Silk Co., Inc., et al. *v.*United States,

protests 126012-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Ekwall, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
(Reap. Dec. 9506)

#### American Express Company *v.*United States

Entry No. 14256, etc.

(Decided September 15, 1959)

*Barnes, RiohariLson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*George Cochran Doub,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

OliveR, Chief Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement enumerated in schedule “A,” hereto attached and made a part hereof, relate to certain comptograph machines and parts thereof exported from Germany during the period from approximately February 1, 1955, to March 1,1957, and entered at the port of Chicago, Ill.

Stipulated facts, upon which these appeals have been submitted, establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the merchandise in question is cost of production, as defined in section 402(f) of the *490Tariff Act of 1930, and that such statutory value for the comptograph machines identified by the invoice item numbers enumerated in schedule “B,” attached hereto and made a part hereof, is as set forth in said schedule “B,” and that such statutory value for the parts of comptograph machines included in the invoices involved herein is, in each instance, the net invoice price, and I so hold.

The appeals for reappraisement, having been abandoned as to all other merchandise, are dismissed, except as to the comptograph machines and parts thereof hereinabove identified.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.