alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 56 (Friday, March 23, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13783]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5319]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ID-5193-000]


Smith, William Harold; Notice of Filing

March 19, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 8, 2007, William Harold Smith filed an 
application for authority to hold interlocking positions pursuant to 
Section 305(b) of the Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 825d(b)), 18 CFR 
45.8 of the Commission's Rules and Regulations, and Order No. 664.
    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, 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 on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to 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#064043544549686a6f686355737676697472466063746528616970"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4c0a091e0f0322202522291f393c3c233e380c2a293e2f622b233a">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 9, 2007.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-5319 Filed 3-22-07; 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>
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

____________________________________ 

) 

JANE DOE, ) 

) 

Plaintiff, ) 

) 

v. ) Civil Action No. 11-1755 (ABJ) 

) 

DE AMIGOS, LLC ) 

d/b/a Spot Lounge, et al., ) 

) 

Defendants. ) 

____________________________________) 

ORDER 

 On June 10, 2014, Magistrate Judge Alan Kay issued a Report and Recommendation 

[Dkt. # 98] with respect to plaintiff’s motion for default judgment as to defendant Mazin Saleh 

[Dkt. # 90]. The report advised the parties “that under the provisions of Local Rule 72.3(b) of 

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, any party who objects to the Report 

and Recommendation must file a written objection thereto with the Clerk of this Court within 14 

days of the party’s receipt of this Report and Recommendation.” June 10, 2014 Report & 

Recommendation. To date, no objections have been filed. 

 It is therefore ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [Dkt. # 98] is 

ADOPTED in its entirety; 

it is FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for default judgment [Dkt. # 90] is 

granted in part and denied in part; and 

it is FURTHER ORDERED that default judgment is entered in favor of plaintiff against 

defendant Saleh in the following amounts: 

x $5,607.70 for past medical damages; 
2 

x $75,000 for future medical damages; 

x $250,000 for pain and suffering; and 

x $300,000 in punitive damages. 

AMY BERMAN JACKSON 

United States District Judge 

DATE: July 1, 2014
#### JAMES P. BOWLER, PLAINTIFF-PETITIONER, v. FIDELITY & CASUALTY COMPANY OF NEW YORK, DEFENDANT-RESPONDENT.

See same case below: 99 *N. J. Super.*184.

*Mr. Robert C. Gruhin*for the petitioner.

*Messrs.*Mead, Gleeson, *Hansen & Pantages*and *Mr. Stanley G. Bedford*for the respondent.

May 28, 1968.

Granted.
##### 



Exhibit 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and(2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 /s/   Ian T. BothwellIan T. Bothwell, Chief Executive Officerof Rio Vista GP LLC, the general partner
of Rio Vista Energy Partners L.P.
November 19, 2007 /s/   Ian T. BothwellIan T. Bothwell, Chief Financial Officer ofRio Vista GP LLC, the general partner
of Rio Vista Energy Partner L.P.
November 19, 2007
#### HORACE KELSEY, Respondent, v. HUGH J. JEWETT, Receiver, etc., Appellant.

*jEvidence*— *the plaintiff must show that the defendants negligence caused, the injury.*

Appeal from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, entered on a verdict rendered at the Livingston Circuit, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made on a case and exception.

This action was brought to recover damages for injuries to the plaintiff’s person, alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant’s employes in charge of a train at a railroad crossing in the town of Caledonia. The plaintiff gave evidence at the trial tending to show that, when the train approached the crossing, the •bell was not rung or the whistle sounded for eighty rods preceding the crossing. The judge charged the jury as follows: “ If you find *52that the signal was not given, you have a right to infer that the omission was a negligent act of such a character as will throw the burden of proof, so far as that question is concerned, upon the defendant to show to your satisfaction-that the omission to ring the bell was, under the circumstances, an act of prudence, and that it did not produce the injuries complained of.”

The court at General Term said: “ The case of *Held*v. *The New York Central and Hudson River Railroad Company,*decided by us in April, 1881, an abstract of which is published in *12*New York Weekly Digest (p. 163), is an authority for the position that the charge was erroneous. The burden was upon the plaintiff to show pot only an act of negligence on the part of the defendant, but also that such negligence produced the injury.” *Lamb*v.. *The Camden and Amboy R. R. Co.,*46 N. Y., 271; *Heinemamn*v. *Hurd,*62 id., 448.)

*Sprague, Millburn do Sprague,*for the appellant.

*J. B. Adams,*for the respondent.

Opinion by

Smith, P. J.;

Hardin and Haight, JJ.,- concurred.

Judgment and order reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide event.
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

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

 

I,Gary R. Holland, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best ofmy knowledge, the Annual Report of Fargo Electronics, Inc. on Form 10-K for theyear ended December 31, 2004 fully complies with the requirements of Section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that informationcontained in such Form 10-K fairly presents in all material respects thefinancial condition and results of operations of Fargo Electronics, Inc.

 

 
| March 16, 2005 |   |                    |   |
|----------------|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|           |   |                    |   |
|           |   |                    |   |
|           | By:    | /s/ GARY R. HOLLAND     |   |
|           | Name:  | Gary R. Holland         |   |
|           | Title: | Chief Executive Officer |   |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to Fargo Electronics, Inc. and will be retained by Fargo Electronics,Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff uponrequest.

 

----
#### In the Matter of the Attorney-General, *Appellant, v.*The Continental Life Insurance Company, *Respondent.*(Claim of Morgan A. Dayton, Jr., *Deceased, for Referee's Fees.)*

Order reversed in all respects, with ten dollars costs and printing disbursements. Motion to confirm denied, with ten dollars costs. Opinion by Learned, P. J.; Westbrook, J., not acting.
Affirmed and Memorandum Opinion on Remand filed May 15, 2014.

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14-12-00586-CR

MICHAEL JOSEPH SNOWDEN, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 179th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 1285227

MEMORANDUM OPINION ON REMAND

Appellant Michael Joseph Snowden appeals his conviction for aggravated 

sexual assault of a child. On original submission, appellant argued that there was 

insufficient evidence in the record to support the court’s costs of $639 reflected in 

the judgment. We agreed and modified the trial court’s judgment to delete the 

specific amount of costs assessed. Snowden v. State, No. 14-12-00586-CR; 2013 

WL 1136600 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] March 19, 2013) vacated and 
2

remanded, No. PD-370-13; 2014 WL 1512902 (Tex. Crim. App. Apr. 16, 2014). 

The Court of Criminal Appeals vacated our judgment and remanded in light of its 

opinion in Johnson v. State, 423 S.W.3d 385 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014).

We review the assessment of court costs on appeal to determine if there is a 

basis for the costs, not to determine whether there was sufficient evidence offered 

at trial to prove each cost. Id. at 390. Traditional sufficiency-of-the-evidence 

standards of review do not apply. Id.

Generally, a bill of costs must (1) contain the items of cost, (2) be signed by 

the officer who charged the cost or the officer who is entitled to receive payment 

for the cost, and (3) be certified. Id. at 392–93; see Tex. Crim. Proc. Code Ann. 

arts. 103.001, 103.006. The record in this case contains a computer-screen printout 

of the Harris County Justice Information Management System (JIMS) “Cost Bill 

Assessment.” In Johnson, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that a JIMS report 

constitutes an appropriate bill of costs because the report itemized the accrued 

court costs, was certified by the district clerk, and was signed by a deputy clerk. 

Johnson, 423 S.W.3d at 393. The JIMS report in this record is a compliant bill of 

costs because it contains an itemized list of costs, is certified by the district clerk, 

and is signed by a deputy district clerk. See id. at 392–93; Perez v. State, No. 14-

12-00893-CR (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] April 22, 2014, no pet. h.) (mem. 

op., not designated for publication). The fact that the bill of costs was not prepared 

until after the court signed the judgment does not defeat the lawfulness of the bill 

of costs. Id. at 394. (“[M]atters pertaining to the imposition of court costs need not 

be brought to the attention of the trial court, including a bill of costs prepared after 

a criminal trial.”).

The trial court assessed $639 in costs against appellant. The sum of the 

itemized costs in the JIMS report is $639. There being no challenge to any specific 
3

cost or the basis for the assessment of such cost, the bill of costs supports the $639

costs assessed in the judgment. Id. at 396.

On remand, we affirm the trial court’s judgment.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and McCally.

Do Not Publish — TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).
#### Beatrice Hecker, Respondent, v Marvin Hecker, Appellant.

[633 NYS2d 384]

—In a matrimonial action in which the parties were separated by judgment dated June 24, 1963, the defendant appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Brucia, J.), dated June 8, 1994, which, *inter alia,*without a hearing, denied his application for downward modification of the amount of alimony and additional support which he is obligated to pay the plaintiff.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

It is settled that in order to obtain a reduction of support or other financial provisions of a judgment of divorce or separation, the party seeking the reduction bears the burden of establishing a substantial change of circumstances *(see, Nordhauser v Nordhauser,*130 AD2d 561; *Tagarelli v Tagarelli,*50 AD2d 917, 918). Such a showing, however must be made initially by affidavit before the hearing processes of the court can be invoked *(see, Hickland v Hickland,*56 AD2d 978, 979). The defendant’s conclusory allegations fall far short of creating issues of material fact necessitating a hearing with respect to the contentions of changed circumstances. Accordingly, summary disposition of the defendant’s motion was proper.

We have reviewed the defendant’s remaining contention and conclude that it is without merit. Mangano, P. J., Miller, Santucci and Hart, JJ., concur.
No. 56490.

protests 168252-K, etc. (New York).

#### Abraham & Straus et al. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
No. 418181

#### Protest 197997-G of R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. (New York).

*329'Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record established that certain of the items in question consist of Normandy laces similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Amrein*(26 C. C. P. A. 353, C. A. D. 40). The claim was therefore sustained as to these articles.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 14-1653

___________________________

Billie Joe Chapman

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Dan Craig, Oakdale Prison Warden; Doctor Gary Keller, Oakdale Prison Dr.; John

Baldwin, Director; Mark Lund, Warden, Clarinda Prison; Dr. Keller, Doctor,

Clarinda Prison

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Iowa - Des Moines

____________

 Submitted: October 7, 2014

Filed: October 10, 2014

[Unpublished]

____________

Before COLLOTON, BOWMAN, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Billie Joe Chapman appeals from the order of the District Court granting

1

summary judgment to the defendants in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action in which

Chapman challenged the defendants’ involuntary administration of medication to

him. After de novo review, we affirm. See Green v. Dormire, 691 F.3d 917, 921 (8th

Cir. 2012) (standard of review). The record shows that the state-court proceeding,

which occurred before Chapman was involuntarily treated with antipsychotic

medication, satisfied the requirements of due process. See Washington v. Harper,

494 U.S. 210, 227, 235–36 (1990) (holding that the Due Process Clause allows an

inmate to be involuntarily treated with antipsychotic medication if he “is dangerous

to himself or others and the treatment is in the inmate’s medical interest” and

explaining the procedural protections required). Further, the District Court did not

abuse its discretion in denying Chapman’s motion for counsel; notably, Chapmanwas

represented by counsel in his state-court proceeding. See Phillips v. Jasper Cnty. Jail,

437 F.3d 791, 794 (8th Cir. 2006) (noting the standard of review and discussing the

“relevant criteria for determining whether counsel should be appointed”).

Accordingly, we affirm.

______________________________

The Honorable Stephanie M. Rose, United States District Judge for the

1

Southern District of Iowa.

-2-
Re: Bensulfuron Draft FWP and DCI for approval 

Brian Kiernan to: Maia Tatinclaux 02/23/2012 12:43 PM

Cc: Nancy Tsaur, Reuben Baris, Sheila Healy, Jude Andreasen, Mark 

Corbin, Patricia Parrott, Paula Deschamp, Stephanie Syslo

History: This message has been replied to.

Maia- I have reviewed the documents as requested and, for my part, find them complete. I only mention 

that the term 'Tier 1' next to the vegetative vigor data requirement in the DCI draft remains a potential 

source of confusion. Removal of this term would be consistent with the language in the current Part 158 

data requirement.

Brian D. Kiernan

Biologist

EPA/OPP/EFED

703.305.0033

Maia Tatinclaux Hello again scientists, This is the last call for com... 02/22/2012 02:42:25 PM

From: Maia Tatinclaux/DC/USEPA/US

To: Brian Kiernan/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Nancy Tsaur/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Reuben 

Baris/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Sheila Healy/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Cc: Jude Andreasen/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Mark Corbin/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Patricia 

Parrott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Paula Deschamp/DC/USEPA/US@EPA

Date: 02/22/2012 02:42 PM

Subject: Re: Bensulfuron Draft FWP and DCI for approval

Hello again scientists,

This is the last call for comments on the bensulfuron methyl FWP and draft DCI. I have not actually heard 

from any of you regarding these documents. I am taking this as good news and if I don't receive any 

comments by COB tomorrow (2/23/12) I will assume all is correct and this FWP will go forward for 

signature on Friday, February 24. I have attached an updated FWP which includes a few changes 

recommended by my PRD management.

Thanks again for all your hard work,

Maia Tatinclaux

Chemical Review Manager

Risk Management & Implementation Branch V

Pesticide Re-Evaluation Division

Office of Pesticide Programs, US EPA

Phone: (703) 347-0123

tatinclaux.maia@epa.gov

Maia Tatinclaux Hello Scientists, Attached are the draft FWP and... 02/09/2012 04:50:12 PM
EXHIBIT 13.2

    CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 USC SS.1350,
         AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SS.906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report on Form 20-F for the fiscal year ended
December 31, 2005 of Metalink Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the U.S.
Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission") on the date hereof (the
"Report"), and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, I, Yuval Ruhama, Chief Financial
Officer, certify that:

     1. the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
15(d) of the Securities Exchange 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 Company.


Date: July 12, 2006

                                                         By: /s/ Yuval Ruhama
                                                         -----------------------
                                                         Yuval Ruhama
                                                         Chief Financial Officer
(Reap. Dec. 8575)

#### Barr Shipping Co., a/c Page Studios, Inc. *v.*United States

Entry Nos. 804441; 788174.

(Decided April 27, 1956)

*Jordan & KUngaman*for the plaintiff.

*George S. Leonard,*Acting Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

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

> *567IT IS STIPULATED AND AGREED by and between the parties hereto, subject to the approval of the Court, that the merchandise and the issues in the above-entitled Appeals to Reappraisement are the same in all material respects as the merchandise and the issues decided in the case of *United States*v. *Nelson Bead Co.,*C. A. D. 590, and that the record in said case be incorporated and made a part of the record herein.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the appraised value of the merchandise covered by the Appeals to Reappraisement enumerated above, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the Appraiser in similar cases, is equal to 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 the country from which exported, in the usual wholesale quantities and in the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings of whatever nature and all other costs, charges and expenses incident to placing the merchandise in condition packed ready for shipment to the United States, and that there was no higher foreign value for such or similar merchandise.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the cases may be submitted on the foregoing 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 values were the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
----------------------------------------------March29,2013VIAFIRSTCLASSMAILUnitedStatesEnvironmentalProtectionAgencyGeorgeT.CzerniakRegion577W.JacksonBoulevard(A-18J)Chicago,Illinois60604-3509G)VEOLIAENVIRONMENTALSERVICESRe:CmmnentsofVeoliaESTechnicalSolutions,L.L.C.onUSEPA'sProposedReopeningofAirPollutionControlTitleVPennitDearMr.Czerniak:VeoliaESTeclmicalSolutions,L.L.C.(Veolia)hassubmittedcommentsontheUnitedStatesEnviromnentalProtectionAgency'sproposedreopeningoftheAirPollutionControlTitleVPennittoOperateissuedtoVeolia.VeoliaappreciatesUSEPA'swillingnesstoconsideritsviewsandcommentswithregardtothereopening.Similarly,VeolialooksforwardtoworkingwiththeAgencybegim1ingonorbeforeAp1il12,2013withregardtotheupcomingTitleVrenewalprocess.Veoliacontinuestobelievethemosteffectivewaytoreduceairemissionsisnotthroughthechangescontainedintheproposedpermitreopening,butratherthroughtheinstallationofadditionalpollutioncontrolequipment.VeoliaiscommittedtospendingsignificantresourcesonpollutioncontrolequipmentprovidedtheconectapprovalsareinplaceandweareabletoresolvethevaliousopenissuesconcerningourTitleVpermit.Wewouldappreciateanopportunitytomeetwithyoutofurtherexplainanddiscussthisproposal.Veoliabelievesthat,bypartneringwiththeAgency,solutionscanbeachievedthatwillallowVeoliatocontinuetoprovideitsvitalservicetosocietythroughtheefficient,effectiveandsafedestmctionofhazardouswaste(destmctionwhichismandatedformanyformsofhazardouswastebyUSEPAregulations)whilealsoprovidingassurancesthattheenviromnentisprotected.ThisproposalwouldbeextremelyexpensiveandwouldrepresentaheavyfinancialburdentoVeolia.VeoliaiswillingtoincurthisfinancialburdeninordertoblingalloftheissueswithitsTitleVpennittoaconclusion.#7MobileAvenue,Sauget,IL62201(618)271-2804www.veoliaes.com-------------------------------G)veOLIAENVIRONMENTALSERVICESVeoliabelievesthattheaboveproposalisthesinglebestwaytoreduceemissionsandprotecttheenviromnent,whileallowingVeoliatoremainanactive,vibrantandemployment-providingparticipantintheSouthernIllinoiseconomy.Pleasemeknowifsuchameetingwouldbeofinteresttoyou;ifso,Iwillcallyoutoarrangeameetingwithourrespectivestaffs.Thankyou.Verytrulyyours,DougHarrisGeneralManagerVeoliaESTechnicalSolutions,L.L.C.Cc:U.S.RepresentativeWilliamEnyartU.S.RepresentativeJohnShimkus#7MobileAvenue,Sauget,IL62201(618)271-2804www.veoliaes.com