alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 62 (Monday, April 2, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 15674]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6004]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-200-169]


CenterPoint Energy Gas Transmission Company; Notice of Negotiated 
Rates

March 27, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 22, 2007, CenterPoint Energy Gas 
Transmission Company (CEGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Sixth Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets to be 
effective April 1, 2007:

Sheet Nos. 809-849
Sheet Nos. 854-862
Sheet Nos. 883-890
Sheet Nos. 892-1999

    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#b6f0f3e4f5f9d8dadfd8d3e5c3c6c6d9c4c2f6d0d3c4d598d1d9c0"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="d5939087969abbb9bcbbb086a0a5a5baa7a195b3b0a7b6fbb2baa3">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6004 Filed 3-30-07; 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. 41875.

#### Protest 916924-G of Jenkins Bros. (New York).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

No further evidence was submitted when the case was called for rehearing. The original decision was adhered to and the protest was-overruled without affirming the action of the collector.
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Labor

###### Employment and Training Administration 

          - [TA-W-61,123] 

Pursuant to Section 221 of the Trade Act of 1974, as amended, an investigation was initiated on March 16, 2007 in response to a petition filed by a company official on behalf of workers of A.O. Smith Electrical Products Company, McMinnville, Tennessee. 

This petition is a duplicate of an earlier petition (TA-W-61,080) filed on March 8, 2007, that is the subject of an ongoing investigation for which a determination has not yet been issued. Further investigation in this case would serve no purpose. Therefore, the investigation under this petition has been terminated. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 20th day of March, 2007. 

Linda G. Poole, 

Certifying Officer, Division of Trade Adjustment Assistance.

[FR Doc. E7-5851 Filed 3-29-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510-FN-P
April 30, 1946

No. 51095.

Abstract 50922.

#### Protest 116063-K of Fred Leighton doing business as Fred Leighton Mexican Imports.

Motion of Government for rehearing granted.
Case No. 14,644.

#### UNITED STATES v. BATES.

Slave Trade — Habeas Corpus — Probable Cause —Failure to Indict — Criminal Law —Commitment.

1. The act of congress declaring the slave trade to be piracy is constitutional.

2. A defendant arrested on a criminal charge, may be committed for a further examination, and held under such commitment for a reasonable time.

3. Where a prisoner is not indicted at the first term of the court, or the grand jury has ignored the bill, he is not entitled to be discharged.

4. On a habeas corpus, the court will only in-cluiré whether the warrant of commitment states a sufficient probable cause to believe that the person charged has committed the offence stated.

(See U. S. v. Johns, 4 U. S. (4 Dali.) 413.]

5. On a hearing of a habeas corpus, it is competent for the court to look into the testimony on which the commitments were made.

(The above statement of the points determined was taken from Brightly’s Dig. 101, 200, 211, 441. Nowhere reported; opinion not now accessible.]
Williams, Renee (OST) )\n(iyiL-oi- h07- QST-f^^" ^Sl4 -

Subject: FW: Chisana Essential Air Service 

From: Britt M. Larson [mailto:britt.larson@kl2northstar.org] 

Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2010 9:38 AM 

To: Little, Cynthia M (DOT) 

Subject: Chisana Essential Air Service 

My family has been visiting Chisana for four generations. I travel to my property in Chisana several times per year, 

regularly using Essential Air Service. In the future I plan to live part time in Chisana. My grandparents, full time 

residents of Chisana, need the Essential Air program for access to medical treatments and to travel outside. Essential Air 

Service is the ONLY practical, reliable, and affordable year round means of transport to Chisana. Travel is already 

extremely limited by Chisana's remote location and access restrictions of the National Park Service. If the service to 

Chisana is cut, all visitor access to Chisana will be limited by the soaring cost of air charters or maintaining a private 

plane. People need the reliable and affordable access to properties in Chisana provided by Essential Air Service. I hope 

this will be taken into account before you consider eliminating the Essential Air Service to Chisana. 

Thank you for your time, 

Britt Larson 

PO BOX 84262 

Fairbanks, AK 99708 

(907)322-7312
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 11 (Thursday, January 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2313-2314]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-617]


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

NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION


Request To Amend License To Import Radioactive Waste

    Pursuant to 10 CFR 110.70 (c) ``Public notice of receipt of an 
application,'' please take notice that the Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission (NRC) has received the following request to amend an import 
license. Copies of the request are available electronically through 
ADAMS and can be accessed through the Public Electronic Reading Room 
(PERR) link http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html at the NRC 
Homepage.
    A request for a hearing or petition for leave to intervene may be 
filed within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Federal 
Register. Any request for hearing or petition for leave to intervene 
shall be served by the requestor or petitioner upon the applicant, the 
Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, 
Washington, DC 20555; the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory 
Commission, Washington, DC 20555; and the Executive Secretary, U.S. 
Department of State, Washington, DC 20520.
    Information concerning the exemption from the requirement for a 
specific import license is as follows:

                                         NRC Import License Application
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Name of applicant, date of
     application, date received,        Description of material           End use            Country of origin
     Application No., Docket No.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 Diversified Scientific Services,      Class A radioactive       For processing,           Canada.
 Inc. (DSSI), December 22, 2006,        mixed waste containing    incineration and return
 December 28, 2006, IW004/04,           tritium and carbon-14,    of resultant residue to
 11004982.                              and mixed fission         Canada.
                                        product radionuclides.   Amend to extend the
                                                                  expiration date from
                                                                  December 31, 2006 to
                                                                  December 31, 2008..
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



[[Page 2314]]

    For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

    Dated this 5th day of January 2007 at Rockville, Maryland.
Margaret M. Doane,
Deputy Director, Office of International Programs.
 [FR Doc. E7-617 Filed 1-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
Number                                                               Shares

                         INCORPORATED UNDER THE LAWS OF
                              THE STATE OF FLORIDA

                    SERIES B 10% CONVERTIBLE PREFERRED STOCK

                    Universal Beverages Holdings Corporation

                            AUTHORIZED CAPITAL STOCK
                       30,000,000 Shares of Common Stock
                       20,000,000 Shares of Common Stock

This Certifies That _____________________________________________________ is the
registered holder of ___________________________________________________  Shares
of the Series B 10% Convertible Preferred Stock of Universal Beverages Holdings
Corporation, fully paid and non-assessable transferable only on the books of the
Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney upon surrender of this
certificate properly endorsed.

In Witness Whereof, the said Corporation has caused this Certificate to be
Signed by its duly authorized officers and its Corporate Seal to be affixed this
day of A.D.


----------------------------------      -------------------------------------
Secretary                                   President
EXHIBIT 10.29



                       AMENDMENT TO TELENETICS CORPORATION
                             2000 STOCK OPTION PLAN

         By unanimous written consent dated effective as of December 28, 2000,
the Board of Directors of Telenetics Corporation amended and replaced Section 5
of the Telenetics Corporation 2000 Stock Option Plan to read as follows:

         5. SHARES SUBJECT TO THE PLAN. For purposes of the Plan, the Committee
         is authorized to grant Options for up to 427,000 shares of the
         Company's common stock ("Common Stock"), or the number and kind of
         shares of stock or other securities which, in accordance with Section
         13, shall be substituted for such shares of Common Stock or to which
         such shares shall be adjusted. The Committee is authorized to grant
         Options under the Plan with respect to such shares. Any or all unsold
         shares subject to an Option which for any reason expires or otherwise
         terminates (excluding shares returned to the Company in payment of the
         exercise price for additional shares) may again be made subject to
         grant under the Plan.
#### In the Matter of David S. and Another, Children Alleged to be Neglected. Balbina S., Respondent; Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York et al., Appellants.

[635 NYS2d 178]

—Order, Family Court, Bronx County (Marjory Fields, J.), entered September 1, 1994, which, *sua sponte,*discharged the children from foster care to the custody of their maternal grandmother, and from a final order from the same court and Justice, entered on or about October 27, 1994, which denied the Law Guardian’s request for an extension of placement hearing pursuant to Family Court Act § 1055, reversed, on the law, the petitions reinstated, and the matter remanded for a hearing in accordance with Family Court Act § 1055, without costs.

The Family Court’s *sua sponte*dismissal of the petitions for extension of placement without granting a hearing and discharge of the children from foster care to the custody of their maternal grandmother violated Family Court Act §§ 1055 and 1052 (a), respectively, and was contrary to the best interests of the children *(Matter of H./M. Children,*217 AD2d 164 [decided herewith]). Although section 1055 (b) (ii) is silent as to whether a hearing is required prior to dismissal of a petition for extension of placement, this Court held in *Matter of Ingrid R.*(209 *242AD2d 177, 178) that it was "improvident to dismiss the petition for an extension of foster care placement without a hearing and in effect leave the child in legal limbo.” Such is the case here where several elements of the children’s service and permanency plans warranted careful review and the failure to do so was likely to be harmful, in light of the court’s disposition.

This error was compounded by discharging the children from foster care to the permanent custody of their maternal grandmother, a violation of section 1052 (a). That section authorizes placement with "a relative or other suitable person” in accordance with the requirements of section 1055 (a), which limit such placement to an initial period of one year and, as noted, require a hearing *(Matter of H. IM. Children, supra).*

Respondent’s contention that the Family Court lacked jurisdiction over the children in 1994 because their placement had lapsed in May 1992 is without merit in that it ignores the fact that the Commissioner of Social Services filed new neglect petitions in January 1993, thereby conferring subject matter jurisdiction *(Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs. [Clara DeJ.],*186 AD2d 33, 34). Concur—Sullivan, J. P., Nardelli and Williams, JJ.

Kupferman, J., concurs in a memorandum as follows: This is another example of bureaucracy interfering, at public expense, in a rational family relationship, despite an intelligent result rendered by an experienced Family Court Judge. *(See, Matter of H.ÍM. Children,*217 AD2d 164, 170 [Kupferman, J., concurring] [decided herewith].)
#### In the Matter of Cynthia L. Rocchio, Respondent, v Centrum Construction Co., Inc., Appellant.

[634 NYS2d 124]

—In a proceeding pursuant to CPLR 5241 (g) to compel Cen*448trum Construction Co., Inc., to turn over to the petitioner certain funds held by it, the appeal is from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County (Wood, J.), entered May 27, 1994, which imposed sanctions and costs on Centrum Construction Co., Inc.

Ordered that the order is modified, on the law and the facts, by deleting the provision thereof which imposed sanctions on Centrum Construction Co., Inc., in the sum of $3,500; as so modified, the order is affirmed, with costs to the petitioner, and the matter is remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for further proceedings consistent herewith.

Contrary to the assertions of Centrum Construction Co., Inc. (hereinafter Centrum), the court properly determined, *inter alia,*that its continued failure to pay and its meritless defense to a proceeding seeking to enforce an income execution was frivolous and warranted sanctions pursuant to 22 NYCRR part 130 in the amount of $5,000 and attorneys’ fees and costs in the amount of $1,500 *(see,*22 NYCRR part 130). However, that portion of the order which imposed sanctions of $3,500 against Centrum, to be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, is remitted for clarification.

A sanction is to be made payable to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection only when it is levied against an attorney *(see,*22 NYCRR 130-1.3). Here, however, the named payor is a corporation. Thus, although, on the facts, a sanction against Centrum’s attorneys in the amount of $3,500 would be appropriate, because it is unclear whether the court misnamed the payor or the payee, the matter is remitted for clarification.

We have considered Centrum’s remaining contentions and find them to be without merit. Miller, J. P., Thompson, Ritter and Krausman, JJ., concur.
#### William H. Davis, *Appellant, v.*John H. Morrell, *Respondent.*

— Judgment reversed, new trial granted, costs to abide event. Opinion by Davis, P. J.
**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**

The undersigned hereby certifies, in his capacity as the Principal Executive Officer of China ShouGuan Mining Corporation****(the “Company”), for the purposes of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of his knowledge:

(1)  The Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2014 (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.

| Dated:  March 10, 2016
/s/ Feize Zhang

  

Feize Zhang

Chairman and Principal Executive Officer

 

(Principal Executive Officer)

This certification accompanies each Report pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the Company for purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request. |
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals

For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 21-10114

Non-Argument Calendar

____________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

EUSEBIO BILLY DUANE SANCHEZ, 

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Alabama

D.C. Docket No. 4:19-cr-00549-RDP-HNJ-1

____________________

USCA11 Case: 21-10114 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 1 of 2
2 Opinion of the Court 21-10114

Before JILL PRYOR, BRANCH and BRASHER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

J.D. Lloyd, appointed counsel for Eusebio Sanchez in this 

direct criminal appeal, has moved to withdraw from further representation of the appellant and filed a brief pursuant to Anders v. 

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Our independent review of the entire record reveals that counsel’s assessment of the relative merit 

of the appeal is correct. Because independent examination of the 

entire record reveals no arguable issues of merit, counsel’s motion 

to withdraw is GRANTED, and Sanchez’s conviction and sentence are AFFIRMED.

USCA11 Case: 21-10114 Date Filed: 01/31/2022 Page: 2 of 2
February 28, 1962

Reap. Dec. 10186.

#### International Seaway Trading Corporation *v.*United States,

reappraisement R59/18513, etc.

Reappraisements dismissed January 18, 1962. Entered at San Francisco, Calif. (Not published.) Motion by plaintiff.
1-900 JACKPOT, INC. (FORMERLY PULTRONEX CORPORATION)
                                CERTIFICATION OF
                           PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                       AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Joseph  Batty,  solely for the purpose of  complying  with 18 U.S.C.  Section
1350,  as adopted  pursuant  to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,
hereby  certify  that to my  knowledge  Annual  Report  of 1-900  Jackpot,  Inc.
(formerly  Pultronex  Corporation)  on Form 10-KSB for the year ended August 31,
2005 ("Report")  fully complies with the  requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934 and that  information  contained in such
Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and
results of operations of 1-900 Jackpot, Inc. (formerly Pultronex Corporation).



DATE:  NOVEMBER 22, 2005

/S/ JOSEPH BATTY
------------------------
    JOSEPH BATTY
PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER


A signed  original of this written  statement  required by Section 906, or other
document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that
appears in typed form within the  electronic  version of this written  statement
has been  provided  to the  Company  and will be  retained  by the  Company  and
furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.