alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 54 (Wednesday, March 21, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 13269]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-5123]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket Nos. ER07-416-000; ER07-416-001]


Geneva Roth Holding, LLC; Notice of Issuance of Order

March 15, 2007.
    Geneva Roth Holding, LLC (GRH) filed an application for market-
based rate authority, with an accompanying rate tariff. The proposed 
market-based rate tariff provides for the sale of energy and capacity 
at market-based rates. GRH also requested waivers of various Commission 
regulations. In particular, GRH requested that the Commission grant 
blanket approval under 18 CFR part 34 of all future issuances of 
securities and assumptions of liability by GRH.
    On March 15, 2007, pursuant to delegated authority, the Director, 
Division of Tariffs and Market Development--West, granted the requests 
for blanket approval under Part 34. The Director's order also stated 
that the Commission would publish a separate notice in the Federal 
Register establishing a period of time for the filing of protests. 
Accordingly, any person desiring to be heard or to protest the blanket 
approvals of issuances of securities or assumptions of liability by GRH 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure. 18 CFR 385.211, 385.214 (2004).
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protest is April 16, 2007.
    Absent a request to be heard in opposition by the deadline above, 
GRH is authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or 
liabilities as a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect 
of any security of another person; provided that such issuance or 
assumption is for some lawful object within the corporate purposes of 
GRH, compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary 
or appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approvals of GRH's issuances of securities or assumptions of 
liability.
    Copies of the full text of the Director's Order are available from 
the Commission's Public Reference Room, 888 First Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. The Order may also be viewed on the Commission's 
Web site at http://www.ferc.gov, using the eLibrary link. Enter the 
docket number excluding the last three digits in the docket number 
filed to access the document. Comments, protests, and interventions may 
be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's Web site 
under the ``e-Filing'' link. The Commission strongly encourages 
electronic filings.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-5123 Filed 3-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
(November 14, 1995)

#### Gaylene Fraser et al., Respondents, v Eli Lilly & Company et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant.

[633 NYS2d 174]

—Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Ira Gammerman, J.), entered April 7, 1994, which denied defendants-appellants’ *201motions to dismiss plaintiffs complaint on grounds of the Statute of Limitations pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (5), unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Under the law of the State of Washington, which must be applied in this case with respect to the Statute of Limitations issue (CPLR 202; *Martin v Dierck Equip. Co.,*43 NY2d 583, 591; *Besser v Squibb & Sons,*146 AD2d 107, 112, n 3, *affd*75 NY2d 847), the question of when a plaintiff discovered, or, with reasonable diligence, should have discovered, all of the essential elements of her cause of action, creates an issue of fact *(see, Ohler v Tacoma Gen. Hosp.,*92 Wash 2d 507, 598 P2d 1358; *Lo v Honda Motor Co.,*73 Wash App 448, 869 P2d 1114). In this case, the injury occurred prior to the enactment and effective date of the Washington Revised Code § 7.72.060 (3) (L 1981, ch 27, § 7). Accordingly, plaintiffs knowledge, as of May 1983, that her injuries were caused by her mother’s gestational ingestion of Stilbestrol, standing alone, was insufficient to trigger the accrual of her cause of action, unless she otherwise may be imputed with knowledge of the additional elements of her cause of action, including knowledge of the defective or dangerous nature of the product; the existence of a seller in the business of selling the product; and a lack of substantial change in the condition of the product *(see, Sahlie v JohnsManville Sales Corp.,*99 Wash 2d 550, 554, 663 P2d 473, 475). Plaintiffs affidavit was sufficient to raise an issue of fact with respect to at least some of these elements, and the motions to dismiss, accordingly, were properly denied. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Rosenberger, Ross and Tom, JJ.
06/24/2010 11:29 5317491945 DONKORNRUMPF PAGE 01/01 

•'P..11T' r I ' T'T 1 1 ' 

11 Ui J 

To; Docket Operations, 202-493-2251 

Re: Docket Number FAA - 2010-0302 

From: EUea Komrumpf 

POB 1021 

Shelter Island NY 11964 

I am writing to strongly support the recommendartions formulated and agreed upon by 

East End Towns over tfie paist few weeks, to the proposed FAA regulations regarding 

helicopter flights over Long Island. As it is now written, the proposed plan would result 

in no relief at all fix«n an intolerable noise problem over the North Fork and Shelter 

Island - and would, in fact, mandate and perpetuate the problem. The cuircnt route 

allows for as many as 40+ helicopters to fly over or close to my own house in Shelter 

Island on a daily basis, effectively destroying the peace and tranquility of our home. 

The recommendations include extending the North Shore route to EHAF to Plum Island, 

with helicopter then flying south and west to East Hampton Airport, thus eliminating the 

present routing over the North Fork and Shelter Island. 1 also support the other 

recommendations, including raising the minimum cruising altitude to 3000', creating an 

additional level of airspace around JFK for helicopters in order to facilitate the South 

Shore route, maintainmg the present noise-abatement regulations at the East End 

Airports, and increasing the role of East Hampton in the management of their airport. 

As for the matter of any "additional costs on the affected helicopters", it is manifestly 

obvious that those who can afford to use helicopters as a luxury, are well able to tolerate 

any additional costs generated by extending the North Shore route to Plum Island. In 

enviroimiental terms, the polluter pays. 

It is more than time for the attitudes and mentalities expressed in the ERHC website to be 

superseded by regulation which is feir and equitable to all, rather than in deference to the 

convenience of a few: 

"Calling All Pilots! ..People on the ground are more willing than ever to 

work hard to take away your fireedom to use the national airspace if they 

perceive your flight to infringe on their "quality of life" .." 

The proposed recommendations to Docket FAA-2010-0302 will ensure that this quality 

of life, which is no mere perception, is not destroyed.
EXHIBIT 32.1





WRITTEN
STATEMENT OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND


CHIEF
FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE


SARBANES —
OXLEY ACT OF 2002





The
undersigned, the Chief Executive Officer and the Chief Financial Officer of
Hines Real Estate Investment Trust, Inc. (“the Company”), each hereby certifies
that to his/her knowledge, on the date hereof:





(a) the
Form 10-Q of the Company for the quarterly period ended September 30, 2009,
filed on the date hereof with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the
“Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section l3(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





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














Date:
November 13,
2009                                             /s/Charles
N. Hazen


Charles N. Hazen


President and Chief Executive
Officer











Date:
November 13,
2009                                                    
/s/Sherri
W. Schugart


Sherri
W. Schugart


Chief
Financial Officer
#### Hadley *v.*Fish.

The common law writ of error does not lie except in cases when final judgment has been rendered in proceedings after the course of the common law.

*Error to the Probate Court of Clear Créele County.*

Upon suggestion the only point presented was, whether in this matter a writ of error would lie to remove the *52record of proceedings in this behalf out of the probate court.

Mr. Charles C. Post, for plaintiff in error.

Mr. Hugh Butler, for defendant in error.

A. W. Stone, J.

A preliminary question is raised in this case as to the power of this court to entertain this writ of error.

The proceedings in the court below were commenced under section 58 of chapter 28, Revised Statutes, to contest the right of the defendant in error to hold the office of justice of the peace in the county of Clear Creek, to which office he had been declared duly elected at an election held on the 10th day of September, 1872.

The testimony was taken as required by statute, and sent to the probate court of Clear Creek county to hear and determine the contest.

The probate court dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, exceptions were taken, and a writ of error sued out. This is a special proceeding by virtue of a new jurisdiction created by statute, and this court is not invested by the legislature with any supervisory jurisdiction of the probate court in such a case.

The probate court, when the evidence is taken by the justice of the peace, and is sent to it, is to hear and decide the contest.

It is a summary proceeding not in accordance with the course of the common law.

When a new jurisdiction is created, and the court is to act in a summary way, in a new course different from the course of the common law, a writ of error will not lie. 2 Tidd’s Practice (3d Am. Ed.) 1134; *Campbell*v. Strong, Hempsted, 195.

The common law writ of error does not lie, except in cases where final judgment has been rendered in proceedings after the course of. the common law. *Baxter*v. *Colum*
      *53
      *bia Township,*16 Ohio, 57; *Savage Manufacturing Co.*v. *Owings,*3 Gill, 497; *Aurentz*v. *Porter,*48 Penn. St. 335; *State*v. *Boyle, 25*Md. 509; *Costen*v. *Costen,*id. 500.

The right to a writ of error gives the right to a supersedeas ; as a consequence the decision of the contest might be postponed until the term of office had expired, and the whole object of the laws be thereby defeated.

A writ of error does not lie in this case, and the case is dismissed with costs.

*Dismissed..*
Exhibit 32

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



         In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Synergy  Financial  Group,
Inc. (the  "Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2004 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),
we,  John S.  Fiore,  President  and  Chief  Executive  Officer,  and  Ralph  A.
Fernandez,  Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer, certify, pursuant
to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of
2002, that:

         (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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.


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
<S>                                             <C>

/s/John S. Fiore                                    /s/Ralph A. Fernandez
-------------------------------------               -------------------------------------------------
John S. Fiore                                       Ralph A. Fernandez
President and Chief Executive Officer               Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)                       (Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)

Date: May 14, 2004                                  Date: May 14, 2004
</TABLE>
No. 49755.

#### Protests 961853-G, etc., of Yick Sang Tong & Co. et al. (San Francisco).

Opinion by

Cline, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel the merchandise in question was held free of duty or dutiable as follows: (1) Bak hop, lotus nuts (hoi shin lien, hoi pak lien), sui sit, wai san (stick), sar sum (uncut), lo hon qua, yuen yuk, and mok qua were found to be crude drugs the same as those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States*(5 Cust. Ct. 70, C. D. 372) and therefore entitled to free entry under paragraph 1669, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 1567, Tariff Act of 1922; (2) Wai san (sliced), yuk chuk, and sar sum (cut) were found to be drugs advanced in value, the same as those involved in *Oy Wo Tong Co.*v. *United States, supra,*and therefore held dutiable at 10 percent ad valorem under paragraph 34, Tariff Act of 1930 or 1922; (3) Apricot kernels were held dutiable at 3 cents per pound under paragraph 762, Tariff Act of 1930, or paragraph 760, Tariff Act of 1922, following Abstracts 29214 and 34104. Protests sustained to this extent.
**Exhibit32.2**

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18U.S.C. SECTION 1350

Inconnection with the Form 10-K of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc. for the yearended December 31, 2006, I, William K. Beauchesne, Treasurer and ChiefFinancial Officer of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc., hereby certify pursuantto 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

(1)such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and

(2) theinformation contained in such Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006,fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of Virginia Commerce Bancorp, Inc.
|  /s/  William K. Beauchesne      |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| William K. Beauchesne                 |
| Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
No. 41879.

#### Protest 101019-G of Salem Shawiry (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

From the record it was found that certain items consist of laces similar to those involved in *Amrein v. United States*(T. D. 49551). The claim at 75 percent under paragraph 1430 was therefore sustained.
**Exhibit 31.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, A.W.Bergeron, certify that:

 

1.               I have reviewed this annual report onForm 10-K of AES Ironwood, L.L.C. (the “registrant”);

 

2.               Based on my knowledge, this report doesnot contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3.               Basedon my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

 

4.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant, and have:

 

a.               designedsuch disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidatedsubsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularlyduring the period in which this  reportis being prepared;

 

b.              evaluatedthe effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand  presented in this report ourconclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures,as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

c.               disclosedin this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (theregistrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.               Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

 

a.               Allsignificant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely toadversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize andreport financial information; and

 

b.              Anyfraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.

 

Date: March 24, 2005

 
|   | /s/ A.W.  Bergeron   |
|--------|----------------------|
|   | Name: A.W.  Bergeron |
|   | President            |

 

----
```

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 65 (Wednesday, April 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 20319]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8121]

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 16

[Docket No. FAA-2012-0176]
RIN 2120-AJ97

Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport Enforcement 
Proceedings (Retrospective Regulatory Review)

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); correction.

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

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting a notice of proposed rulemaking that 
published in the Federal Register on March 5, 2012 (77 FR 13027). In 
that document, the FAA proposed to amend its regulations to update, 
simplify, and streamline rules of practice and procedure for filing and 
adjudicating complaints against federally-assisted airports. This 
correction clarifies that the notice number for that proposed 
rulemaking is 12-02.

DATES: The comment period will close on May 4, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Melissa Loughlin, Office of 
Rulemaking, ARM-204, Federal Aviation Administration, 800 Independence 
Ave. SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-4055; facsimile 
(202) 267-5075; email melissa.loughlin@faa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 5, 2012, the FAA published a notice of proposed rulemaking 
(NPRM) entitled, ``Rules of Practice for Federally-Assisted Airport 
Enforcement Proceedings (Retrospective Regulatory Review)'' (77 FR 
13027).
    In that NPRM, the FAA proposed to update, simplify, and streamline 
rules of practice and procedure for filing and adjudicating complaints 
against federally-assisted airports. The proposed requirements would 
improve efficiency by enabling parties to file submissions with the FAA 
electronically, and by incorporating modern business practices into how 
the FAA handles complaints. If adopted, the amendment would reflect 
changes in applicable laws and regulations, and apply lessons learned 
since the existing rules were implemented in 1996.

Correction

    In FR Doc. 2012-4993, beginning on page 13027 in the Federal 
Register of March 5, 2012, make the following correction:
    On page 13027, in the second column and fourth line under the 
NPRM's publication, correct ``Notice No. 12-01'' to read as ``Notice 
No. 12-02''.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 26, 2012.
Pamela Hamilton-Powell,
Director, Office of Rulemaking.
[FR Doc. 2012-8121 Filed 4-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
```
**EXHIBIT 13.2**

 

**Certification by the Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

 

In connection with the Annual Report of HiSoft Technology International Limited (the “Company”) on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Christine Lu-Wong, 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 to my 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 the Company.

 
| Date: May 4, 2011 |                  |
|------------------------|-----------------------|
|                   |                  |   |
|                   |                  |   |
| By:                    | /s/ Christine Lu-Wong |   |
|                   | Name:                 | Christine Lu-Wong |   |
|                   | Title:                | Chief Financial Officer |   |

 

----
Case: 2:10-cv-00116-MHW-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/08/10 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:10-cv-00116-MHW-EPD Doc #: 18 Filed: 11/08/10 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T16:46:56-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO