alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 91 (Friday, May 11, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 26778]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9147]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Natural Resources Conservation Service


Florence Flood Retarding Structure Supplemental Watershed Plan, 
Pinal County, AZ

AGENCY: Natural Resources Conservation Service.

ACTION: Notice of a finding of no significant impact.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental 
Policy Act of 1969; the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations 
(40 CFR part 1500); and the Natural Resources Conservation Service 
(NRCS) Regulations (7 CFR part 650); the Natural Resources Conservation 
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, gives notice that an 
environmental impact statement is not being prepared for the Florence 
Flood Retarding Structure (FRS) Supplemental Watershed Plan, Pinal 
County, Arizona.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David McKay, State Conservationist, 
USDA-NRCS, 230 North First Avenue, Suite 509, Phoenix, Arizona 85003, 
telephone (602) 280-8801.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The environmental assessment of this 
federally assisted action indicates that the project will not cause 
significant local, regional, or national impacts on the environment. 
Based on evidence presented, David McKay, State Conservationist, has 
determined that the preparation and review of an environmental impact 
statement are not needed for this project.
    The project proposes to rehabilitate the Florence FRS to meet NRCS 
and State of Arizona safety and performance standards.
    The Notice of a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) has been 
forwarded to the Environmental Protection Agency and to various 
Federal, State, and local agencies and interested parties. Copies of 
the FONSI are available to fill single copy requests at the above 
address. Basic data developed during the environmental assessment are 
on file and may be reviewed by contacting Don Paulus, Assistant State 
Conservationist for Programs, at the above address.
    No administrative action on implementation of the proposal will be 
taken until 30 days after the date of this publication in the Federal 
Register.
    (This activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic 
Assistance under No. 10.904, Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention, 
and is subject to the provisions of Executive Order 12372, which 
requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local 
officials.)

    Dated: May 2, 2007.
David McKay,
State Conservationist.
[FR Doc. E7-9147 Filed 5-10-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-16-P
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and ExplosivesFact Sheet
Public Affairs Division � Washington, DC

At The Frontline Against Violent Crime

August 2008

http://www.atf.gov/

Contact: ATF Public Affairs Division

(202) 648-8500
Project Gunrunner
ATF is deploying its resources strategically on the Southwest Border to deny firearms, the �tools of the trade,� to criminal organizations in Mexico and along the border, as well as to combat firearms-related violence affecting communities on both sides of the border. In partnership with other U.S. agencies and the Government of Mexico, ATF refined its Southwest Border strategy. ATF developed Project Gunrunner to stem the flow of firearms into Mexico and thereby deprive narcotics cartels of weapons. The initiative seeks to focus ATF's investigative, intelligence and training resources to suppress firearms trafficking to Mexico and stem firearms-related violence on both sides of the border.

Firearms tracing, in particular the expansion of the eTrace firearms tracing system, is a critical component of Project Gunrunner in Mexico. In 2008, ATF deployed eTrace technology in the nine U.S. consulates in Mexico. ATF has conducted discussions with the Government of Mexico regarding the decentralization of the firearms tracing process to deploy Spanish-language eTrace to other Mexico agencies.

In the past two years, ATF has seized thousands of firearms headed to Mexico. Trends indicate the firearms illegally crossing the U.S.-Mexico border are becoming more powerful. ATF has analyzed firearms seizures in Mexico from FY 2005-07 and identified the following weapons most commonly used by drug traffickers:
- 9mm pistols;   
- .38 Super pistols;   
- 5.7mm pistols;   
- .45-caliber pistols;   
- AR-15-type rifles; and   
- AK-47-type rifles. 

Most of the firearms violence in Mexico is perpetrated by drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) who are vying for control of drug trafficking routes to the United States and engaging in turf battles for disputed distribution territories. Hundreds of Mexican citizens and law enforcement personnel have become casualties of the firearms-related violence. DTOs operating in Mexico rely on firearms suppliers to enforce and maintain their illicit narcotics operations. Intelligence indicates these criminal organizations have tasked their money-laundering, distribution and transportation infrastructures with reaching into the United States to acquire firearms and ammunition. These Mexican DTO infrastructures have become the leading gun-trafficking organizations operating in the southwest United States.

ATF has dedicated approximately 100 special agents and 25 industry operations investigators to the Southwest Border initiative over the past two years. ATF has recently assigned special agents to Las Cruces, N.M., and Yuma, Ariz. These assignments are part of a broad plan to increase the strategic coverage and disrupt firearms-trafficking corridors operating along the border.

For more information on ATF�s programs, please visit the website at http://www.atf.gov/.

###
No. 49437.

#### Protest 100275-K of Strauss-Eckardt Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

It was stipulated that the papier-máché articles are the same in all material respects as those the subject of *Strauss-Eckardt*v. *United States*(T. D. 48272). In accordance therewith the claim at 25 percent under paragraph 1403 was sustained.
#### Alfred Orlik, Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6749.

Entry No. 738690.

Invoice dated London, England, January 1946.

Certified January 23, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., February 15, 1946.

(Decided January 13, 1947)

*John D. Rode*for the plaintiff.

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

Keefe, Judge:

This appeal for reappraisement has 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.
Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the Atlantic and Maryland Reporters. Users are requested to notify the Clerk of the Court of any formal errors so that corrections may be made before the bound volumes go to press.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

No. 22

- BG

- 700

IN RE THOMAS MCCARTHY, JR.

DDN : 20 21

- D 106

A n Administratively Suspended Member

of the Bar of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Bar Reg istration No. 996764

BEFORE: McLeese and Howard , Associate Judges, and Ferren , Senior Judge.

O R D E R (FILED

— November 23, 2022)

On consideration of the opinion and certified copy of the order from the s tate
of Maryland disbarring respondent from the practice of law; this court’s September

21

, 2022 , order suspending respondent pending final disposition of this proceeding

and directing him to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed ; respondent’s motion for an extension of time to file his lodged late response ; and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel; and it appearing that respondent filed his D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit on November 14, 2022 , it is

ORDERED that respondent’s motion for an extension of time is granted and

his lodged response is filed. It is

FURTHER ORDERED that Thomas McCarthy, Jr., is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia , nunc pro tunc to November 14, 2022

. See In re Sibley , 990 A.2d 483 , 487

- 88 (D.C. 2010) (explaining that there is a rebuttable presumption in favor of imposition of identical discipline and exceptions to this presumption should be rare); In re Fuller , 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) ( stating that a rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline appl ies unless

one of the ex ceptions is established). Although respondent argues that exceptions apply and reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, these arguments merelyNo. 22

- BG

- 700

attempt to relitigate the discipline imposed by the state of Maryland, which is not permitted in reciprocal discipline cases. See In re Chaganti , 144 A.3d 20, 24 (D.C. 2016) (“[O]ur responsibility in reciprocal discipline matters is not to sit in appellate review of the foreign disciplinary proceedings, in order to determine whether they conformed in every respect to local procedural and substanti ve law.”); In re

Zdravkovich , 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (holding that, in a reciprocal matter, respondent “is not entitled to relitigate or collaterally attack the findings or judgment

of the [original disciplining court] ” and the infirmity of proof ex ception “is not an invitation to the attorney to relitigate in the District of Columbia the adverse findings of another court in a procedurally fair setting”) (citations omitted). We also reject respondent’s assertion that the Maryland disciplinary procee dings deprived him of due process because (1) he had notice of those proceedings and an opportunity to respond, and (2) he in fact participated in those proceedings.

PER CURIAM
Exhibit 32



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

In connection with the Annual
Report of Coventry Health Care, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period
ending December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
hereof (the Report), each of the undersigned hereby certifies, 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) 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: February 28, 2007

|By:   /s/ Dale B. Wolf                                          | 
|--------------------------------------------------------------- | 
|                                                                | 
|Dale B. Wolf                                                    | 
|Chief Executive Officer and Director                            | 
|                                                               
|                                                               
|By:   /s/ Shawn M. Guertin                                      | 
|                                                                | 
|Shawn M. Guertin                                                | 
|Executive Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer |
The State of TexasAppellee

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

Tuesday, April 7, 2015

No. 04-15-00183-CR

Richard LARES,

Appellant

v.

The STATE of Texas,

Appellee

From the 399th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2006CR10110

Honorable Juanita A. Vasquez-Gardner, Judge Presiding

ORDER

On August 10, 2009, the trial court imposed sentence on Appellant Richard Lares. 

Because the judgment incorrectly recited the date of offense, on January 26, 2015, the trial court 

signed a Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc correcting the date of offense. On March 5, 2015, Appellant 

filed a Motion to Arrest Judgment. Contra TEX. R. APP. P. 22.3 (requiring a motion in arrest of 

judgment to be filed “no later than 30 days after[] the date when the trial court imposes or 

suspends sentence in open court”). On March 19, 2015, Appellant filed a Notice of Intent to 

Appeal.

A judgment nunc pro tunc is an appealable order. Blanton v. State, 369 S.W.3d 894, 903 

(Tex. Crim. App. 2012). However, to perfect an appeal the notice of appeal must be filed within 

thirty days of the date that the trial court signs the judgment nunc pro tunc. Dewalt v. State, 417 

S.W.3d 678, 689 (Tex. App.—Austin 2013), pet. ref’d, 426 S.W.3d 100 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014). 

Here, the trial court signed the Judgment Nunc Pro Tunc on January 26, 2015; 

Appellant’s notice of appeal was due on February 25, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.2(a)(1); 

Dewalt, 417 S.W.3d at 689. A motion for extension of time to file was due on March 12, 2015. 

See TEX. R. APP. P. 26.3 (Extension of Time); Olivo v. State, 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. 

App. 1996). No motion for extension of time to file a notice of appeal was filed.

“If a notice of appeal is not timely filed, the court of appeals has no option but to dismiss 

the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.” Castillo v. State, 369 S.W.3d 196, 198 (Tex. Crim. App. 

2012). 
We ORDER Appellant Richard Lares to show cause in writing within THIRTY DAYS of 

the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See 

Blanton, 369 S.W.3d at 903. 

All other appellate deadlines are SUSPENDED pending further order of this court.

_________________________________

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the said 

court on this 7th day of April, 2015.

___________________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court
Before the Second Division,

August 31, 1939

No. 42034.

#### Petition 5754-R of A. R. Tillotson (Laredo).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Being satisfied from an examination of the record that the entry was without any intent to defraud the revenue of the United States or bo conceal or misrepresent the facts, the court granted the petition.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26616-26617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8985]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP05-150-006]


Hardy Storage Company, LLC; Notice of Compliance Filing

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Hardy Storage Company, LLC 
(Hardy) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, First

[[Page 26617]]

Revised Sheet No. 145, with an effective date of April 1, 2007.
    Any person desiring to protest this filing must file in accordance 
with Rule 211 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR 385.211). Protests to this filing 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. Such protests 
must be filed on or before the date as indicated below. Anyone filing a 
protest must serve a copy of that document on all the parties to the 
proceeding.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests 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 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#6d2b283f2e2203010403083e181d1d021f192d0b081f0e430a021b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="01474453424e6f6d686f64527471716e737541676473622f666e77">[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 May 11, 2007.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8985 Filed 5-9-07; 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>
#### James E. Fox & Co., Inc., a/c Wm. Goodacre & Sons, Ltd., et al. *v.*United States

No. 6475.

Entry No. 731583/1-3, etc.

Invoices dated Manchester, England, November 4, 1941, etc.

Certified November 6, 1941, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 26, 1941, etc.

(Decided October 29, 1946)

*Strauss & Hedges (Eugene F. Blauvelt of*counsel) for the plaintiffs.

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

Kinoheloe, Judge:

The appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule A, hereto attached and made a part hereof, 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 importers on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Harvest for this publication is in lps41765:

file://acfnas/perm/netsite-docs/lps41765/lps41765/www.au.af.mil/au/afri/aspj/apjinternational/apjiesp/PreviousEditions.asp.htm
|   | 1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to the annual report on Form 10-K of SonoSite, Inc.; and |
|--------|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 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; |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   |                                                                           |
|--------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   /s/ Marcus Y. Smith                                                     |
|   | Marcus Y. Smith                                                                |
|   | Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer) |
EX-10.2.2



 




Exhibit
10.2.2


SHARE PURCHASE AGREEMENT

RELATING TO BIWATER SUPPLY LIMITED

DATED 27 JUNE 2006



The Parties hereby agree that further to the Share Purchase Agreement (“the Agreement”) dated 27
June 2006, in accordance with Clause 3 of the Agreement, the fair market value of Biwater Supply
Limited is US$ 14,340,000 and this has been arrived based on the methodology, assumptions and
calculations as set out in the attached Paper entitled “VALUATION OF AGUAS DE PANAMA” dated 22
November 2006. Therefore prior to 26 December 2006 Cascal B.V. shall pay to Biwater Plc an
additional US$ 640,000 which is the difference between the Purchase Price of US$ 14,340,000 and the
Initial Purchase Consideration of US$ 13,700,000.



AGREED AND SIGNED IN DORKING, SURREY ON 23 NOVEMBER, 2006




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	/s/ David Lawrence Magor
 

For and on behalf of the Sellers

	 	 
	 	/s/ Stephane Marcel Jean Richer
 

For and on behalf of the Purchaser
	 	 
	Mr. David Lawrence Magor

	 	 	 	Mr. Stephane Marcel Jean Richer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from B.B.
Walker's Form 10-Q for the second quarter of fiscal 2000 and is qualified
in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000104218
<NAME> B.B. WALKER COMPANY
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-28-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               APR-29-2000
<CASH>                                               1
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,727
<ALLOWANCES>                                       593
<INVENTORY>                                      8,387
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                15,855
<PP&E>                                           8,129
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,746
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  17,366
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,866
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         83
<COMMON>                                         1,746
<OTHER-SE>                                       1,530
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    17,366
<SALES>                                         11,028
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,056
<CGS>                                            7,970
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   11,288
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     1
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   145
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 479
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (712)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (712)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (712)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.41)


</TABLE>