alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12813]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4905]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Indian Affairs


Indian Gaming

AGENCY: Bureau of Indian Affairs, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of Approved Tribal-State Class III Gaming Amendment.

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

SUMMARY: This notice publishes an approval of the amendment to the 
Tribal-State Compact for regulation of Class III gaming between the 
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation and the State of 
Oregon.

DATES: Effective Date: March 19, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George T. Skibine, Director, Office of 
Indian Gaming, Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary--Policy and 
Economic Development, Washington, DC 20240, (202) 219-4066.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under section 11 of the Indian Gaming 
Regulatory Act of 1988 (IGRA), Public Law 100-497, 25 U.S.C. 2710, the 
Secretary of the Interior shall publish in the Federal Register notice 
of approved Tribal-State Compacts for the purpose of engaging in Class 
III gaming activities on Indian lands. This amendment expands the 
distribution of the funds in the Fund Administration to the tribes' 
political subdivisions and clarifies that local government bodies 
includes school districts and individual schools.

    Dated: March 7, 2007.
Michael D. Olsen,
Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary--Indian Affairs.
[FR Doc. E7-4905 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-4N-P
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

27

28

This matter was determined to be suitable for decision without *

oral argument. L.R. 78-230(h).

All Doe Defendants have previously been dismissed; therefore, 1

the Court construes this as a motion to amend the Complaint.

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

 )

)

SHARON HOPE, )

) 2:04-cv-2223-GEB-CMK

Plaintiff, )

)

v. ) ORDER*

)

OTIS ELEVATOR COMPANY, OHANA )

HOTELS-RESORTS, OUTRIGGER )

HOTELS-RESORTS, DOVER ELEVATOR )

COMPANY, )

)

Defendants. )

)

Plaintiff moves for leave to substitute Thyssenkrupp

Elevator Corporation in the place of Doe Defendant number 2 pursuant

to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(c), declaring Thyssenkrupp

Elevator Corporation purchased Dover Elevator Company. (Altemus 1

Decl. ¶ 4.) No opposition to the motion has been filed. L.R. 78-

230(c). Plaintiff has twenty-one days leave from the date on which

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 53 Filed 09/14/06 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

27

28

2

this Order is filed to file and serve a second amended complaint that

effects the requested substitution under Rule 25(c).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 13, 2006

/s/ Garland E. Burrell, Jr.

GARLAND E. BURRELL, JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02223-GEB-CMK Document 53 Filed 09/14/06 Page 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 32.2

      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. 1350,
      AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended
June 30, 2004, (the "Report") of Technology Investment Capital Corp. (the
"Registrant"), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof; I, Patrick F. Conroy, the Chief Financial Officer of the Registrant,
certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

     (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
         15(d) of the Securities Act of 1934, as amended; and

     (2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all
         material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
         the Registrant.


                                                 /s/ Patrick F. Conroy
                                                 -------------------------------
                                                 Name: Patrick F. Conroy
                                                 Date: August 10, 2004
No. 55977.

protest 169720-K/3237 (Chicago).

#### N. Shure Company *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, C. J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protest.
Before the Second Division,

July 18, 1941

No. 46172.

#### Protests 64391-K, etc., of N. S. Meyer, Inc., et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

' In accordance with stipulation of counsel and following *Meyer*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 191, C. D. 459) the claim at 40 percent under paragraph 385 was sustained.
office at 

(Address) 

hereby designates. pursuant to section 46103 of Title 49 of the U.S. Code t fom1erly section 1 005fbl of the Ffdeml A' Act 

of 1958. amended I the person named bel< I\\' as i[s Agent upon "·hom ser\'ice of all notices and .. anc.J all ordeP.oo. 

and requirements of the Depm1mem ofTransponation may be made for and on beh::Jlr of said carrier. hereby canceling all 

de5ignations of agent5 made by it w the DOT. 

Name of Agent ____ ___ 

(Please Print) 

Covington & Burling LLP, 1201 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20004 

Address ----------------------------------------------------------------------

The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space: 

Name a=-<..._a.J__S----'-rlll_f'---!.. (Initials) _13_5=-----

IN WITNESS WHEREOF. _____________ Asiana Airlines, _:__:__:__:_:_:__:_::___:_ ________________ has caused these 

presents to be signed in its name by 

(Name of Company) 

___________ s_o_o_C_h_e_on,--K_i_m-::-:-----------------------· President 

(Please Print) 

of said company. and to be attested under its corporate seal by 

(Secretary. or other Title) 

on this 6-rh day of /+v.rr.+ # 2014 

Asiana Airlines, Inc. 

By: 

ATTEST: (President) 

OST F 1010.5 (1-95)
#### In the Matter of A. LEONARD BLUESTEIN, an attorney at law.

Eor the order: *Mr. Bernard Feinberg.*

April 2, 1962.

Name of respondent stricken from the roll of attorneys at law. Opinion reported at 37 *N. J.*167.
(Reap. Dec. 8267)

#### Morris Friedman *v.*United States

Entry Nos. WH 2422; WH 2424; 3525.

(Decided December 18, 1953)

*Barnes, Richardson & Colburn*for the plaintiff.

*Warren E. Burger,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

*426Olivee, Chief Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the parties hereto:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the attorneys for the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the instant appeals to reappraisement consists of imitation pearl necklaces exported from Japan.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the market value or the price at the time of exportation of such merchandise to the United States at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade for exportation to the United States, including cost of all containers and coverings and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition, packed, ready for shipment to the United States was 5per necklace.

> That on or about the date of exportation of such merchandise to the United States the market value or the price at which such or similar merchandise was freely offered for sale to all purchasers in the principal markets of Japan in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, packing included, was no higher.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the instant appeals to reappraisement are submitted on this stipulation.

On the agreed facts, I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved, and that such value was *5}í*cents per necklace, packed, United States currency.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
No. 52324.

protests 87095-K, etc. (San Francisco).

#### Far East Co. et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise are similar in all material respects to the articles the subject of *Rolls Razor, Inc.*v. *United States*(6 Cust. Ct. 271, C. D. 480) and Abstract 51306 the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained. Kumquats stipulated to be the same as those involved in *United States*v. *Fung Chong Co.*(34 C. C. P. A. 40, C. A. D. 342) were held properly dutiable at 1 cent per pound under paragraph 743 as oranges.
**EXHIBIT 32.3**

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of CanoPetroleum, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the quarter endedDecember 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Michael J. Ricketts, Principal AccountingOfficer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities andExchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company, as of , and for, the periods presented in theReport.

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or itsstaff upon request.

The foregoing certification is being furnished as anexhibit to the Form 10-Q pursuant to Item 601(b)(32) of Regulation S-K andSection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 202 (subsections (a) and(b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code) and,accordingly, is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q for purposes ofSection 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is notincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
| February 9, 2007 | /s/ Michael J. Ricketts      |   |
|------------------|------------------------------|--------|
|             | Michael J. Ricketts          |   |
|                  | Principal Accounting Officer |   |

 

----
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 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), as
applicable, of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of Interchange Corporation.
 Date: May 12, 2006
    
    /s/ Heath B. Clarke
 Heath
B. Clarke
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
(Principal Executive Officer)/s/ Douglas S. Norman
 Douglas
S. Norman
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
(Principal Financial Officer)
Case No. 13,827.

#### TEN BROECK v. PENDLETON.

[5 Cranch, C. C. 464.] 1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

March Term, 1838.

Pleading at Law — Sealed Instrument — Imfrop eh Action — Attachment Founded Thereon — Amendment.

An attachment to answer in a plea of trespass on the case, founded upon a promissory note having a scrawl for a seal, will be quashed, and the plaintiff will not have leave to amend, nor to declare in debt.

This was an attachment under the Maryland act of 1795 (chapter 56), to compel the .defendant [E. 'H. Pendleton, garnishee of E. C. Moore] to answer to the plaintiff [Richard Ten Broeck] “in a plea of trespass on the ease.” The capias was also to answer in a plea of trespass on the case. The short note was in these words: “The cause of action in this case is a promissory note drawn by the said Edmund C. Moore, in favor of the said plaintiff, dated Baltimore, 24th October, 1835, at one day after date, for $450, now due and unpaid.”

The promissory note, produced in evidence, and which was annexed to the order of the *840justice, for the attachment, was as follows: “$430. Baltimore, October the 24th, 1835. One day after date, I promise to pay R. Ten Broeek, or order, the sum of $450. Edmund C. Moore. (L. S.)”

Mr. Brent appeared for the garnishee, and .moved the court to quash the attachment, because it is to answer in a plea of trespass on the case, when the cause of action is in debt; the note being under seal. The case of Trasher v. Everhart, 3 Gill & J. 235, is decisive.

Mr. Bradley, for plaintiff.

The practice here is different from that in Maryland. There, the short note is considered as a declaration, but here, if the defendant appears to the capias, the plaintiff may file a declaration in any form of action in case or debt. The only object of the attachment is to compel an appearance. Barry v. Eoyles, 1 Pet. [26 U. S.] 311, 314.

But THE COURT will give leave to amend, if the justice of the case requires it, as in the cases of McCloud v.. Coliman [Case No. 8,703] and Cooper v. Hardy [Id. 3,196]. The decisions of the Maryland courts since the separation are not binding upon this eourt. Wallingford v. Allen, 10 Pet. [35 U. S.] 583.

THE COURT

(CRANCH, Chief Judge,

contra) was of opinion that the attachment should be quashed.

Mr. Bradley then moved to amend the short note by stating the instrument to be under seal, and to declare in debt. There is no bail to be injured by the amendment. The property of the debtor, himself, is attached. The motion to quash is made really by the defendant, through the garnishee.

THE COURT refused leave.to amend by changing the action from case to debt, because the short note of the cause of action would not have given- the defendant the notice which the act contemplates. The attachment was quashed, because it was to compel the- defendant to answer in an action of trespass on the case, when the cause of action was in debt upon a sealed instrument.
July 2, 1941

No. 46165.

#### Protest 57644-K of Olivier Straw Goods Corp.

Abstract 46051. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing granted.
Exhibit 32.1


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002


In connection with the Quarterly Report of Kronos Worldwide,  Inc. (the Company)
on Form 10-Q for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006 as filed with the  Securities
and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the Report),  I, Harold C. Simmons,
Chief  Executive  Officer of the  Company,  and I,  Gregory M.  Swalwell,  Chief
Financial Officer of the Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to section 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/ Harold C. Simmons
----------------------------
Harold C. Simmons
   Chief Executive Officer


/s/ Gregory M. Swalwell
----------------------------
Gregory M. Swalwell
   Chief Financial Officer


May 5, 2006


Note: The certification  the registrant  furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed
"filed" for purposes of Section 18 of the  Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,  as
amended,  or otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section.  Registration
Statements or other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange  Commission
shall not incorporate this exhibit by reference,  except as otherwise  expressly
stated in such filing.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. MAX KOPES, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

*Mr. Harry Q. Hyra*and *Mr. Emanuel Gersien*for the petitioner.

*Mr. Frank 0. Scerbo*and *Mr. Bertram Polow*for the respondent.

May 14, 1962.
#### STATE OF NEW JERSEY, PLAINTIFF-RESPONDENT, v. WILLIAM SIMMONS, DEFENDANT-PETITIONER.

See same case below: 98 *N. J. Super.*430.

*Mr. Peter Murray*and *Mr. Marie D. Lamer*for the peti- • tioner.

*Mr. Joseph P. Lordi*and *Mr. Barry H. Bvenchicle*for the respondent.

March *12,*1968.

Granted.
```

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 53 (Tuesday, March 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 13106-13107]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5017]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-344-000]

Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation; Notice of Tariff 
Filing

March 14, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 9, 2007, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line 
Corporation (Transco) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Fourth Revised Sheet No. 134 and 
Sixth Revised Sheet No. 135F, to be effective April 8, 2007.
    Transco states that the purpose of the instant filing is to update 
the lists of Buyers in Section 9 of Rate Schedule WSS and Section 8.2 
of Rate Schedule WSS-Open Access.
    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 
Sec.  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

[[Page 13107]]

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 
[email protected], or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5017 Filed 3-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
# Jf**ourtlj Court** **of £>ti\\** **Antonio, December** **30, 2013** **No. 04-12-00735-CR** **and 04-12-00736-CR** **Albert NICHOLAS,** **Appellant v.** **The STATE** **of Texas,** **Appellee From** **the 198th** **Judicial District** **Court, Kerr** **County, Texas** **Trial Court** **No. B93-6** **and B93-7** **Honorable Rex** **Emerson, Judge Presiding** 

### I)**The Appellanl's** **motion for** **extension of** **time to** **file the** **motion for** **rehearing is** **GRANTED. Time** **is extended** **to January** **27, 2014.** **Sandce Bryan** **Marion, Justice** **IN WITNESS** **WHEREOF, have** **hereunto set** **my hand** **and affixed** **the seal** **of the** **said court** **on this** **30th day** **of December,** **2013. Keitn** **E. Mottle** **Clerk of** **Court**
#### Smith, Appellant, *v.*Peacock Construction Company.

Argued October 8, 1968.

Before Belu, C. J., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O’Brien and Roberts, JJ.

*Robert L. Geisler,*with him *Patrono, Geisler & Edwards,*for appellant.

*William G. Porter,*for appellee.

*365November 27, 1968:

Opinion by

Me. Justice O’Brien,

This appeal is not properly before us. The Act of June 24, 1895, P. L. 212, §7, as amended, 17 P.S. §181 et seq., provides for the jurisdiction of the Superior Court. By virtue of the amendatory legislation of August 14, 1963, P. L. 819, §1, 17 P.S. §184, it is provided that the Superior Court shall have appellate jurisdiction in: “All actions and proceedings at law in the courts of common pleas and in the County Courts of Allegheny County and Philadelphia County and all similar courts, whether originating therein or reaching that court by appeal or certiorari from some other court or tribunal, if the subject of the controversy be either money, chattels, real or personal, or the possession of or title to real property, and if also the amount or value thereof in controversy be not greater than ten thousand dollars, exclusive of costs.” That same Act of August 14, 1963, P. L. 819, §2, 17 P.S. §191.1, provides for the determination of the amount in controversy: “In any action or proceeding in the court of common pleas or in any county court, *if the plaintiff*or any claimant in such action or proceeding, or a defendant who shall have filed a counterclaim, *recovers damages*either for a tort or *for a breach of contract, the amount of the judgment, order, decree or award shall be conclusive proof of the amount in controversy,*but if no amount is recovered, the amount in controversy shall be determined by the amount of damages claimed in the complaint or counterclaim, whichever is greater.” (Emphasis ours). This procedure, whereby the jurisdiction is determined by the amount of the judgment wherever there is one, has been followed by this Court since its original enactment in the Act of 1895. See, e.g., *Gerber v. Jones,*344 Pa. 277, 25 A. 2d 141 (1942).

*366In *the*instant ease, a judgment was entered for the plaintiff, appellant here, for the sum of $1,846.81. It is no longer relevant that appellant’s original claim was for $37,709.60. The amount in controversy as defined by the Statute is $1,846.81, and the case is therefore within the jurisdiction of the Superior Court.

Appeal remitted to the Superior Court.

Mr. Justice Musmanno did not participate in the decision of this case.