alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 68 (Tuesday, April 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 17889]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-6680]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-378-000]


Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

April 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on March 30, 2007 Pine Needle LNG Company, LLC 
(Pine Needle) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, 
Original Volume No. 1, Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 4 to become 
effective May 1, 2007.
    Pine Needle states that it is serving copies of the instant filing 
to its affected customers, interested state commissions and other 
interested parties.
    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#51171403121e3f3d383f34022421213e232511373423327f363e27"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="eea8abbcada1808287808bbd9b9e9e819c9aae888b9c8dc0898198">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Philis J. Posey,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-6680 Filed 4-9-07; 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>
#### Wm. Mills & Son, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7358.

Invoice dated London, England, February 28, 1946.

Certified March 1, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., April 11, 1946.

Entry No. 751867.

(Decided August 14, 1947)

*Benjamin A. Levett*for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Mollison, Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

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 are the appraised values, less the additions made by the importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NeuStar, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 November 10, 2006
    /s/ Jeffrey A. BabkaJeffrey A. BabkaChief Financial Officer
(Principal Accounting Officer)
##### 



Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of NeuStar, Inc.;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a
material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made,
in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading
with respect to the period covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and
for, the periods presented in this report;
 4.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange
Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 a.
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused
such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its
consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,
particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;b.
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure
controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the
period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc.
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrants fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial reporting;
and
 5.
    
    The registrants other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of the registrants board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):
 a.
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the
design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb.
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or
other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal
control over financial reporting.
 November 10, 2006
    /s/ Jeffrey E. GanekJeffrey E. GanekChairman and Chief Executive Officer
(Principal Executive Officer)
Case No. 13,894.

#### THOMAS v. CLARK et al.

[2 McLean, 194.] *1*

Circuit Court, D. Michigan.

Oct. Term, 1840.

PLEADING AT Law — PLEA DENTING INSTRUMENT Sued ox — Affidavit—General Issue. '

1. By the rules of the court, a plea which denies the instrument on which the action is founded, or the indorsement of it, must be sworn to.

2. If filed without affidavit, the general issue may be good for some purposes, but the note and the indorsement, under such plea, are admitted.

3. And this admission is, that the signature on the note is as averred in-the declaration.

[Cited in Ames v. Quimby, 106 U. S. 346, 1 Sup. Ct. 120.]

[Cited in Pegg v. Bidleman, 5 Mich. 29.]

At law.

Lockwood *&*Barstow, for plaintiff.

Mr. Backus, for defendants.

OPINION OF THE COURT.

This action

is brought against the defendants, who are partners, as indorsers of a bill of exchange to the plaintiff. A rule of court requires a plea' of the general issue, denying the execution of an instrument, or of an indorsement on which the action is brought, to be sworn to. The general issue in this case being filed, without oath, a question is made, whether the ground of the action is admitted. The defendants’ counsel contends, that the signatures of Clark and Cole, as they appear to be indorsed on the note, only are admitted, and not the partnership, and that it is necessary for the defendants to prove the partnership. The rule was designed to prevent delays by filing issues, which are not true in fact. A plea of the general issue, under the rule, may be good for some purposes, but it admits the instrument on which the action is brought. In this case, the in-dorsement by the defendants is admitted. Smith v. McManus, 7 Yerg. 477. But to what extent does this admission go? Most clearly, the admission is, that the defendants indorsed the note, as they are alleged to have done in the declaration. In the declaration, they are stated to be partners, and, as such, indorsed the note in the partnership name. This construction of the rule imposes no hardship on the defendants. If the note were not indorsed by them, as partners, they might have sworn to the plea, which would have thrown on the plaintiff the necessity of proving their signatures, as alleged in the declaration. Judgment.
U.S. Oeporlmenlof Tronsporlallon

**O~t·te** Ofme

**secret~Jry** Of Trorsp-:J;•;J'•Or't Chief. Documentary Services Div. Department of Transportation Washington. D.C. 20590 

### JetBlue Airways Corporation DESIGNATION OF AGENT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE. PROCESS, ORDERS DECISIONS AND REQUIREMENTS
ATTENTION: DOCKET SECTION. C-55 (Name of Company. please print) office at 

### 27-01 Queens Plaza North, Long Island City, NY 11101 (Address) • having its principal
hereby designates. pursuant to section 46103 ofTitk -19 ofthe U.S. Code tfom1erly section I(lOStb) ofthe Fedeml A\ iution Act of 1958. a; amended) the person named bt:low as its Agent upon whom sen·ice ofall notices and proces;, und all order,.

**decision~.** and requirements ofthe Depa11ment of·Transpo11ation may be made for and on behall' ofsaid carrier. hereby canceling all pre\'iou' designations ofagents made by it to the DOT. Name of Agent 

### Evel n Sahr EckertSeamans Cherin & 

### Mellott, LLC (Please Print) 

### 1717 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, 12thFloor, Address 

### Washington DC, 20006 The Agent so designated has written his name and also his initials in the following space: Name 

## _..;.f...:~.l..<!lr~~l..::IL:"f(+-0..!.-.:0""-._,.. **'Sc~,.._"""J'-'-'-\1** _________ (Initials)



## _E::;.;::]~2S _____ _ IN WITNESS WHEREOF. 

### _.LJ.::.et:.::B::c:l:.::u:.;:e..:A.::.l::.::.

**r...:..w:...:a:.~y..:::s.....;C:::.o:::.r::.J·p::.;o:::..:r:..:a:.::t::.::io::.::n;;_**

### ___________ has caused these (Name of Company) 

### Robert C. Land, Senior Vice Presidentfor Government·Affairs presents to be signed in its name by 

### andAssociate Counsel . President (Please Print) of said company. and to be attested under its corporate seal by

### Executive Vice President, CorporateAffairs James G. Hnat, Esq. General Counsel and Corporate Secretary (Secretary. or other Title) on this 29th day of 

### April 2015 JetBlue Airways Corporation By:

# _;WiXZJ_y)- ATTEST: (President) (Secretary. or other officer) OST F 1010.S (1-95)
#### Mortimer Hendricks *v.*Montefiore Isaacs, Adm’r, etc.

Motion to amend remittitur.

*A. P. & W. Man,*for motion; *Alram Kling,*opposed.

Remittitur amended by striking out the words “and the case remitted to-the surrogate for further proceedings,” and substituting in place thereof “and the case remitted to the supreme court for further proceedings, with costs to* abide the event.”

See 27 N. Y. State Rep., 449.
No. 38938.

#### Protests 809044-G, etc., of Musolino Lo Conte Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *United States*v. *Strohmeyer*(25 C. C. P. A. 120, T. D. 49242) origan was held free of duty under paragraph 1722 as claimed.
Case: 2:11-cv-00164-MHW-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/29/11 Page: 1 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

Case: 2:11-cv-00164-MHW-EPD Doc #: 15 Filed: 12/29/11 Page: 2 of 2  PAGEID #: <pageID>

    -       - Superintendent of Documents
      - 2015-05-08T21:31:17-0400
      - US GPO, Washington, DC 20401
      - Superintendent of Documents
      - GPO attests that this document has not been altered since it was disseminated by GPO
EXHIBIT32.2

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEYACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report ofQuanta Capital Holdings Ltd. (the‘‘Company’’) on Form 10-Q for the fiscalquarter ended September 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the‘‘Report’’) and pursuant to 18 U.S.C.Section 1350, as adopted in Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of2002, I, Jonathan J. R. Dodd, Interim Chief Financial Officer of theCompany, certify that to the best of my knowledge:

|          |                                                                                                                      |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 1.  | The report fully complies with the requirements ofSection 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |

|          |                                                                                                                                                    |
|----------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| 2.  | The information contained in the Report fairlypresents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company. |

Date: November 14,2005

/s/ Jonathan J.R. DoddJonathan J. R.Dodd(Principal FinancialOfficer)

----
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court

generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order

and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

F I L E D

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit

JAN 22 2001

PATRICK FISHER

Clerk

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

ARTHUR MORRISON,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

E.W. MORRIS, Warden, Federal

Transfer Center, Oklahoma City,

Oklahoma, United States of America,

ex rel,

Respondent-Appellee.

No. 00-6189 & 00-6220

(D.C. No. 99-CV-1906-A)

(W.D. Okla.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before BRISCOE, LUCERO, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of

these appeals. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The cases are

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.
2--

Appellant Arthur Morrison, a federal prisoner representing himself, appeals

from orders of the district court that dismissed his petition under 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, denied his motion

for reconsideration, and denied his motion for release on bail and for permission

to conduct interrogatories. He has filed motions in this court for release pending

appeal and for an evidentiary hearing on the bail motion, to dismiss counsel as

well as a reply to his attorney’s response moving to withdraw, to file an oversize

reply brief, to supplement his reply brief, and a letter-affidavit which requests that

his issues be adjudicated forthwith. 

We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291, and affirm. As we have

repeatedly explained to appellant, his challenges to the legality of his conviction

and sentence must be brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the United States District

Court for the Southern District of New York, where he was sentenced. See

Morrison v. Pugh, No. 98-1455, 1999 WL 176144 (10th Cir. Mar. 31, 1999)

(unpublished); Morrison v. Pugh, No. 98-1278, 1998 WL 704670 (10th Cir.

Oct. 2, 1998) (unpublished); Morrison v. Guzik, Nos. 97-6351, 97-6416, 1998 WL

380539 (10th Cir. June 30, 1998) (unpublished). 

The judgment of the United States District Court for the Western District of

Oklahoma is AFFIRMED. Appellant’s motion to dismiss counsel and appellant’s
3--

counsel’s motion to withdraw are granted. Appellant’s other motions are denied. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court

ENTERED FOR THE COURT

PER CURIAM
No. 43001.

#### Protest 971308-G of Wm. Shaland (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of novelties in chief value of fur similar to those the subject of Abstract 41823. The claim at 50 percent under paragraph 1519 (e) was therefore sustained.
#### Marvin Lane, Adm’r, Resp’t, *v.*The Town of Hancock, App’lt.

*(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,*

*Filed February 24, 1890.)*

Venue— Change of.

The general term will not interfere with the decision of the special term upon its decision of a motion to change the place of trial for convenience of witnesses unless there has been a plain and evident abuse of discretion.

Appeal from order denying motion to change the place of trial from Sullivan to Delaware county made on the ground of convenience of witnesses.

Action to recover for injuries sustained upon a highway in the defendant town. Plaintiff now lives in Sullivan county and brought the action there.

The motion was made upon the affidavit of defendant’s supervisor, who gives the names of seventeen witnesses living in his town whom he claims on advice of counsel to be material and necessary.

Plaintiff’s answering affidavits show that two of said witnesses do not reside in said town and that several of said witnesses are more convenient to the county seat of Sullivan than to that of Delaware county; and set forth the names of twelve witnesses residing in Sullivan county who are material and necessary for plaintiff.

*W. J. Welsh,*for *app’lt; John F. Anderson,*for resp’t.

Learned, P. J.—

There are very few cases in which we ought to interfere with the decision of the special term on a motion to change the place of trial for the convenience of witnesses. The matter is one of sound judgment and discretion, not one of law. And unless there has been a plain and evident misuse of such discretion the decision of the special term must stand.

Such a case is not before us. Without attempting an exact, enumeration of the witnesses, it is enough to say that there was no great preponderance on either side.

Of course it is well known, that though the convenience of witnesses is the ostensible, it is not the real motive of such motions. The supposed interest and convenience of the parties are the reasons for making and for opposing. And it is seldom that, on the trial, all or nearly all the witnesses are called who have been stated to be absolutely necessary and indispensable. Very probably such will be the result in this case.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs, and printing disbursements.

Landon, J., concurs.
# C_2007140EN.01002101.xml

| 23.6.2007 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 140/21 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.6.2007

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 140/21

---

Judgment of the Court of First Instance (Fifth Chamber) of 3 May 2007 — Tsarnavas v Commission

(Case T-343/04) (1)

1

(Officials - Staff report - Invalidity - Action for annulment - Interest to bring proceedings - Action for damages - Inadmissibility)

(2007/C 140/34)

Language of the case: French

Parties

Applicant: Vassilios Tsarnavas (Volos, Greece) (represented by N. Lhoëst and B. d'Orléans, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Commission of the European Communities (represented by C. Berardis-Kayser and D. Martin, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

First, application for the annulment of the decision of the appeal assessor of 4 August 2003 establishing the definitive staff report in relation to the applicant for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 and, secondly, action for damages in respect of the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant by reason of the late drawing up of his staff report and the moral harassment of which he was the victim.

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Declares that the decision of the appeal assessor of 4 August 2003 establishing the definitive staff report in relation to the applicant for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 is annulled; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Declares that the decision of the appeal assessor of 4 August 2003 establishing the definitive staff report in relation to the applicant for the period from 1 July 1997 to 30 June 1999 is annulled;

| 2. | Dismisses the action as to the remainder; |
| --- | --- |

2.

Dismisses the action as to the remainder;

| 3. | Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-half of the costs incurred by the applicant. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Orders the Commission to pay its own costs and one-half of the costs incurred by the applicant.

---

(1)  OJ C 262, 23.10.2004

1

---