alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 52 (Monday, March 19, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 12757]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-4945]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

International Trade Administration

[A-570-906, A-560-820, and A-580-856]


Postponement of Preliminary Determinations in the Antidumping 
Duty Investigations of Coated Free Sheet Paper from the People's 
Republic of China, Indonesia, and the Republic of Korea

AGENCY: Import Administration, International Trade Administration, 
Department of Commerce.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magd Zalok (People's Republic of 
China), Irina Itkin (Indonesia) or Joy Zhang (Republic of Korea), 
Import Administration, International Trade Administration, U.S. 
Department of Commerce, 14th Street and Constitution Avenue, NW, 
Washington, DC 20230; telephone: (202) 482-4162, (202) 482-0656, or 
(202) 482-1168, respectively.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Postponement of Preliminary Determination

    On November 20, 2006, the Department of Commerce (Department) 
initiated the antidumping duty investigations of coated free sheet 
paper from the People's Republic of China (PRC), Indonesia and the 
Republic of Korea. See Initiation of Antidumping Duty Investigations: 
Coated Free Sheet Paper from Indonesia, the People's Republic of China, 
and the Republic of Korea, 71 FR 68537 (November 27, 2006). The notice 
of initiation stated that, unless postponed, the Department would make 
its preliminary determinations in these antidumping duty investigations 
no later than 140 days after the date of the initiation.
    On March 1, and 2, 2007, NewPage Corporation (Petitioner) made 
timely requests pursuant to 19 CFR 351.205(e) for a fifty-day 
postponement of the preliminary determinations in these investigations. 
Petitioner requested postponement of the preliminary determinations 
because it needed additional time to evaluate the questionnaire 
responses filed by respondents, develop surrogate values (in the PRC 
investigation) and, if warranted, prepare an allegation of targeted 
dumping.
    For the reasons identified by the Petitioner, and because there are 
no compelling reasons to deny the request, the Department is postponing 
these preliminary determinations under section 733(c)(1)(A) of the 
Tariff Act of 1930, as amended (``Act''), by fifty days to May 29, 
2007. The deadline for the final determination will continue to be 75 
days after the date of the preliminary determination, unless extended.
    This notice is issued and published pursuant to sections 733(c)(2) 
of the Act and 19 CFR 351.205(f)(1).

    Dated: March 12, 2007.
David M. Spooner,
Assistant Secretaryfor Import Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-4945 Filed 3-16-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
(LOGO) AMERIQUEST
       MORTGAGE
       COMPANY


February 25, 2000



As of and for the year ended December 31, 1999,  Ameriquest Mortgage Company has
complied in all material respects with the minimum servicing standards set forth
in the Mortgage  Bankers  Association of America's  Uniform  Single  Attestation
Program for Mortgage  Bankers.  From January 1, 1999 through  December 31, 1999,
Ameriquest  Mortgage  Company  had in effect a  fidelity  bond in the  amount of
$10,000,000 and for the same period, an errors and omissions policy ranging from
$6,425,000 to $8,025,000.

Kirk Langs
President


Elaine Stangl
Executive Vice President
Loan Servicing

John P. Grazer
Executive Vice President
Cheif Financial Officer
DISMISS and Opinion Filed August 19, 2021 

# S

In The 

### Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas
No. 05-21-00591-CR JOSE EDUARDO ANGUIANO, Appellant V. THE STATE OF TE XAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-59903-P
MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices Molberg, Goldstein, and Smith Opinion by Justice Goldstein After the Texas Court of Criminal A ppeals granted Jose Eduardo Anguiano an out of time appeal, Bruce Anton filed a notice of appeal on appellant’s behalf. Shortly thereafter, Michael Casillas was appointed to represent appellant and likewise filed a notice of appeal. Because the notices were timely, we informed both attorneys of the duplicative filings and asked them to inform the Court which attorney will represent appellant in his direct appeal. Both agr eed that Mr. Casillas w ill represent appellant and that the later-filed appeal (05-21-00685-CR) will proceed.–2– In light of this, we dismiss this appeal.

Do Not Publish T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.2(b) 210591F.U05 /Bonnie Lee Goldstein / BONNIE LEE GOLDSTEIN JUSTICE–3– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas JUDGMENT
JOSE EDUARDO ANGUIANO, Appellant

No. 05-21-00591-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the 203rd Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F16-59903-P. Opinion delivered by Justice Goldstein. Justices Molberg and Smith participating. Based on the Court’s opinion of this date, we DISMISS this appeal.

Judgment entered August 19, 2021
#### Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P., Appellant, v Earl Brustowsky, Respondent.

[634 NYS2d 82]

—Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Edward Lehner, J., and a jury), entered May 19, 1994, which dismissed the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

The trial court, in charging the jury, properly required the jury to interpret and determine the fair and reasonable meaning of the term "hazardous substances” as used in the lease between the parties. This Court specifically determined, on a prior appeal, that the lease provision at issue was ambiguous and that the parties’ intent with respect thereto must be resolved at trial *(Manhattan Cable Tel. v Brustowsky,*191 AD2d 253, 254). Resolution by a fact finder is required where, as here, interpretation of a contract term is susceptible to varying reasonable interpretations and intent must be gleaned from disputed evidence or from inferences outside the written words *(Maliad Constr. Corp. v County Fed. Sav. & Loan Assn.,*32 NY2d 285, 291).

The trial court also properly refused plaintiffs request to charge the jurors on the basis of one isolated statutory definition of the term "hazardous substances” set forth in ECL 37-0103 (6 NYCRR 597.1 [a] [3] [ix]). Plaintiff conceded at trial that such a regulatory definition was not determinative of the issue, and the evidence adduced at trial established that the parties intended a meaning for the lease provision at issue independent of any conflicting statutory or regulatory definitions of "hazardous substances” in the complex Federal and State environmental scheme *(cf., Dolman v United States Trust Co.,*2 NY2d 110). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Ellerin, Ross, Nardelli and Tom, JJ.
#### UNITED STATES, Appellee v RONALD E. TONEY, Private First Class, U. S. Marine Corps, Appellant

16 USCMA 296, 36 CMR 452

No. 19,488

July 15, 1966

*Major Ernest B. Wright,*USMC, was on the pleading for Appellant, Accused.

*Colonel J. E. Hanthorn,*USMC, was on the pleading for Appellee, United States.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam:

The petitioner appeals from his sentence to a bad-conduct discharge, confinement at hard labor for three months, and forfeiture of $45.00 per month for a like period, following his conviction for the offense of assault and battery under Article 128, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 USC § 928.

We find merit in his appeal. The maximum imposable punishment for this offense, standing alone, is confinement at hard labor for six months and forfeiture of two-thirds pay for six months. However, as in this case, where an accused is found guilty of an offense or offenses for none of which a dishonorable or bad-conduct discharge is authorized, proof of two or more previous convictions will authorize the imposition of a bad-conduct discharge and forfeiture of all pay and allowances. Table of Maximum Punishments, Section B, paragraph 127c, Manual for Courts-Martial, United States, 1951.

In the case at bar, evidence of three prior convictions was admitted and the president of the court correctly instructed the members as to the maximum imposable punishment. In so doing, however, he did not inform them that the bad-conduct discharge was imposable only because of the previous convictions. This was error. United States v Geter, 15 USCMA 209, 35 CMR 181. See also, United States v Hutton, 14 USCMA 366, 34 CMR 146.

*297Accordingly, appellant’s petition for review is granted. The decision of the board of review as to sentence is reversed and the record of trial is returned to The Judge Advocate General of the Navy for further action. The board of review may affirm a sentence which does not include a bad-conduct discharge, or a rehearing may be ordered on the penalty.
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

DONALD GEORGE LINDEN,

Plaintiff, CIV-S-04-2696 FCD GGH PS

vs.

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION;

JOANN B. BARNHART, Commissioner;

LESLIE S. WALKER, Regional Director,

Northern California,

Defendants. ORDER

__________________________________/

On August 1, 2006, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations

herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the

findings and recommendations were to be filed within ten days. Plaintiff filed objections on

August 9, 2006, and they were considered by the district judge.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to

which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.

Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920

(1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made,

the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v.

Case 2:04-cv-02696-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/07/06 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

2

United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir.

1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing,

concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the Proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The Proposed Findings and Recommendations filed August 1, 2006, are

ADOPTED; 

2. Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Leslie S. Walker are dismissed pursuant to

Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m) and 12(b)(5);

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss filed May 23, 2005, is granted; and 

4. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment filed May 23, 2005, is granted.

DATED:September 6, 2006

/s/ Frank C. Damrell Jr. 

FRANK C. DAMRELL JR.

United States District Judge

Case 2:04-cv-02696-FCD-PAN Document 28 Filed 09/07/06 Page 2 of 2
No. 42925.

#### Protest 9008-K of Durbrow & Hearne (New York).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

The name of the country “Germany” appeared backwards on certain of the paper folders. The protest was sustained as to the balance of the merchandise which was properly marked.
**Exhibit
      10.13**




Form
      of


Amendment
      No. 1


to


Security
      Agreement





Between





**RIO
      VISTA OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, L.P.**




And





**TRANSMONTAIGNE
      PRODUCT SERVICES INC.**





TransMontaigne
      Product Services Inc. (“TPSI”) and Rio Vista Operating Partnership, L.P. (“Rio”)
      entered into a Security Agreement dated August 15, 2005” (“Security Agreement”)
      pursuant to the terms of that certain Purchase and Sale Agreement dated August
      15, 2005 (“Agreement”) between the same parties. In accordance with the Amended
      and Restated Agreement dated August 15, 2006, Rio and TPSI agreed to amend
      the
      Security Agreement, effective as of the Closing Date of the Amended and Restated
      Agreement, as follows:





1. In
      the
      first line of Section 2.1, delete the words “Debtor’s Collateral, as that term
      is defined in Section 3.1(d)”, and insert in their place “Debtor’s New
      Collateral, as that term is defined in Section 3.1(e)”. In the third line of
      Section 2.1, after the date “August 15, 2005,” insert “.., as amended and
      restated on August 15, 2006.” In the 9 th line of
      the same section, after the amount “$1,300,000.00,” insert the
      following:





“,
      plus
      interest as described in the Promissory Note executed by Debtor in favor of
      Creditor of even date with this Agreement (the “Promissory Note”).





2. In
      Section 5.1, delete everything after the words “until paid,” and insert in their
      place “in accordance with the Promissory Note.”





3. Delete
      Section 5.7 in its entirety.





4. The
      other
      terms of the Security Agreement remain unchanged and the parties hereby ratify
      and confirm them.




**TRANSMONTAIGNE
                  PRODUCT SERVICES INC.**
              
              **RIO
                  VISTA OPERATING****PARTNERSHIP,
                  LP**By:
              
              
              By:Name:
                  William S. Dickey
              
              Name:
                  Charles HandlyTitle:  
                  President
              
              Title:  
                  President
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                  JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                          500
<SECURITIES>                    0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0
<INVENTORY>                     0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0
<PP&E>                          0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  500
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           1,500
<BONDS>                         0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0
<PREFERRED>                     0
<COMMON>                        500
<OTHER-SE>                      (1,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    500
<SALES>                         0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0
<CGS>                           0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   3,557
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                 (3,557)
<INCOME-TAX>                    0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             (3,557)
<DISCONTINUED>                  0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0
<CHANGES>                       0
<NET-INCOME>                    (3,557)
<EPS-BASIC>                     (0.00)
<EPS-DILUTED>                   (0.00)




</TABLE>
#### Bellotti *v.*Spaeder, Appellant.

Argued October 9, 1968.

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

*Irving 0. Murphy,*with him *MacDonald, Illig, Jones <& Britton,*for appellant.

*220*John R. Falcone,*with him *Petrillo, Cavanaugh & Falcone,*for appellee.

January 15, 1969:

Opinion by

Mk. Justice Eagen,

This action was brought to recover damages for personal injuries suffered in an automobile accident. The original defendant moved for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the action was barred by the statute of limitations. From the denial of this motion, the present appeal was filed. It must be quashed.

An order denying a defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is interlocutory and is not appealable. *McGee v. Singley,*382 Pa. 18, 114 A. 2d 141 (1955), and *Vendetti v.*Schuster,1418 Pa. 68, 208 A. 2d 864 (1965). But it is asserted that a question of jurisdiction is involved, and hence, an appeal lies under the Act of March 5, 1925, P. L. 23, 12 P.S. §672. This is not correct.

The Act of 1925, supra, allows an appeal “where-ever in any proceeding in law or in equity the question of jurisdiction over the defendant or the cause of action for which suit is brought is raised in the court of first instance . . . .” In the instant case, there can be no question of the court’s competence to hear the controversy or of its jurisdiction over the person of the defendant after valid service of process. The defense raised does not go to the judicial power of the court as to the cause or its jurisdiction over the person of the defendant, but rather to the mode in which the case is brought before the court.

*221In personal injury actions, the defense of the statute of limitations does not divest the court of power to hear the action and may be waived by consent or conduct of the parties. It is merely a procedural bar to recovery. *Echon v. Penna. R.R. Co.,*365 Pa. 529, 76 A. 2d 175 (1950), and *Goldstein v. Stadler,*417 Pa. 589, 208 A. 2d 850 (1965).2

Appeal quashed.

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

1

 An Interlocutory order is not appealable unless specifically made so by statute. An order denying *a plaintiffs motion for judgment on the pleadings' in assumpsit actions*is made appealable by tbe Act of April 18, 1874, P. E. 64, 12 P.S. §1097. See *Ross v. Metropolitan Life Insurance Co., 403*Pa. 135, 169 A. 2d 74 (1961). Tbe Act of 1874 is inapplicable bere. *Vendetti v. Schuster,*supra.

2

 The general statute of limitations barring recovery in personal injury actions after the lapse of time is not a condition placed by the law on a substantive right such as in the Workmen’s Compensation Act and the Mechanics’ Lien Law. Cf. *Goldstein v. Stadler,*417 Pa. 589, 208 A. 2d 850 n. 1 (1965).
#### People v Melvin Peabody.

(Docket No. 59896.)

Melvin Paul Peabody, *in propria persona,*appellant.

Request for appointment of counsel denied.

Case below, Court of Appeals No. 25059, per curiam opinion of May 5, 1977.
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 01-20321

Conference Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

FRANCISCO SANCHEZ, JR.,

Defendant-Appellant.

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

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Texas

USDC No. H-00-CR-697-ALL

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

February 21, 2002

Before JOLLY, JONES, and BENAVIDES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Francisco Sanchez, Jr., appeals his conviction of one count

of being a felon in possession of a firearm. He argues that 18

U.S.C. § 922(g)(1) is unconstitutional on its face because it

does not require a substantial effect on interstate commerce. As

this court recently held, “the constitutionality of § 922(g) is

not open to question.” See United States v. Daugherty, 264 F.3d

513, 518 (5th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation omitted), pet. for

cert. filed, No. 01-7524 (Dec. 20, 2001). The judgment of the

district court is AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 58 (Tuesday, March 27, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 14287]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5528]



[[Page 14287]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

Federal Emergency Management Agency

[FEMA-1686-DR]


Georgia; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster 
Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia (FEMA-1686-DR), dated March 3, 2007, and 
related determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 2007.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Magda Ruiz, Recovery Division, Federal 
Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2705.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster declaration 
for the State of Georgia is hereby amended to include the following 
areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by 
the catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of March 3, 2007:

    Warren, Webster, and Wilkinson Counties for Public Assistance.

(The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) 
are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community 
Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund Program; 97.032, Crisis 
Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services Program; 97.034, 
Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management 
Assistance; 97.048, Individuals and Households Housing; 97.049, 
Individuals and Households Disaster Housing Operations; 97.050, 
Individuals and Households Program--Other Needs; 97.036, Public 
Assistance Grants; 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.)

R. David Paulison,
Under Secretary for Federal Emergency Management and Director of FEMA.
 [FR Doc. E7-5528 Filed 3-26-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110-10-P
Exhibit 32.3

CERTIFICATION 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 of Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund on Form 10-Q for the period
ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, to the best of his knowledge:



| | (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 Graham Series.
| | --- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                                                                                                                         
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                       
|Robert J. Enck                                                                                                                           
|President and Chief Executive Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund
|                                                                                                                                         
|/s/ Brent Bales                                                                                                                          
|Brent Bales                                                                                                                              
|Chief Financial Officer of Equinox Fund Management, LLC, the Managing Owner of Graham Series, a Series of The Frontier Fund              

Date: May 14, 2008