alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 90 (Thursday, May 10, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26622-26623]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8978]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP07-432-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed 
Changes in FERC Gas Tariff

May 4, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 30, 2007, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston Basin) tendered for filing as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised 
tariff sheets to become effective April 30, 2007:

Seventeenth Revised Sheet No. 5
Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 6
Thirteenth Revised Sheet No. 8
Fifteenth Revised Sheet No. 9

    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#9fd9dacddcd0f1f3f6f1facceaefeff0edebdff9faedfcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="266063746569484a4f484375535656495452664043544508414950">[email protected]</span></a>, or call

[[Page 26623]]

(866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-8978 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>
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,

J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 24, 2011

h0516 

# Order

May 24, 2011

142478

SHEILA K. GRAVES, Petitioner-Appellant,

v SC: 142478 COA: 298990 Alger CC: 09-004944-AA CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 17, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is consider ed, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented s hould be reviewed by this Court.
**Exhibit32.1**

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

In connection with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MathStar, Inc. (the “Company”) for the quarterended March 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission onMay 10, 2007 (the “Quarterly Report”), I, Douglas M. Pihl, President and ChiefExecutive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,that:

1.               TheQuarterly Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d)of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

2.               Theinformation contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all materialrespects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

 
| Date: May 10, 2007 |   | By:    |   | /s/ Douglas M. Pihl                   |   |   |
|--------------------|--------|--------|--------|---------------------------------------|--------|--------|
|               |   |   |   | Douglas M. Pihl                       |   |   |
|               |   |   |   | President and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |

 

----
No. 46410.

#### Protest 10945-K of Transatlantic Factors, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Dallinger, J.

The president of the plaintiff-corporation in describing the merchandise said: “There is a somewhat strong spring under this cover here which by pushing this handle the rod here is pressed down on these notches showing here on that wheel. Now, if I press this lever to the left there is nothing to hold the punch; if I press it to the right it takes hold of this wheel and perforates at the same time,” and proceeded to demonstrate the operation of said exhibit. From an examination of the exhibit and the record the court was of the opinion that such a mechanism is something more than a mere cutting tool of the kind named in paragraph 396, stating that: “It transmits the force of the operator’s hand through the mechanical principle of a lever against the tension of a spring to the two plungers which serve to make holes in the paper to be punched. At the same time, through mechanical means, it transmits power to the friction wheels which, in turn, pull a predetermined amount of reinforcing tape forward into position. Simultaneously with these operations the proper amount of tape is severed or cut from the roll and the portion immediately above the paper being operated on is firmly affixed to the paper by pressure.” Following *Simon*v. *United States*(8 Ct. Cust. Appls. 273, T. D. 37537) the court sustained the claim that the merchandise is dutiable as a machine under paragraph 372.
No. 56715.

protest 125051-K (New York).

#### McKesson & Robbins, Inc. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Mollison, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that the merchandise consists of cornmint oil the same in all material respects as that the subject of *A. Maschmeijer, Jr., Inc.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 139, C. A. D. 476), the claim of the plaintiff was sustained.
#### Joseph Horne Co. *v.*United States

No. 6492.

Entry No. 456, etc.

Invoices dated London, England, January 29, 1946, etc.

Certified January 29, 1946, etc.

Entered at Pittsburgh, Pa., February 25, 1946, etc.

(Decided November 7, 1946)

*Jerome G. Clifford*for the plaintiff.

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

*402Oliver, Presiding 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 importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2  PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER CERTIFICATION  I, John W. Peters, certify that:  1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Skinovation Pharmaceutical Incorporated;  2. Based on my knowledge, this quarterly report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statement made, in light of the circumstances under which statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly 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 small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report.  4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) 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 small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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 small business issuer’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; and  (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and  5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):  (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 small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.   Date: November 8, 2007/s/ John W. Peters
John W. Peters
Principal Financial Officer
No. 53257.

#### The Algren Mfg. Co. et al. *v.*United States,

protests 142762-K, etc. (New York).

Opinion by

Lawrence, J.

The protests were dismissed.
Before the First Division,

September 22, 1943

No. 48794.

#### Protests 3572-K/88694, etc., of Lambin & Co. et al. (Chicago).

Opinion by

Cole, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise in question consists of Norgine F the same as the commodity passed upon in *United States*v. *Betz*(30 C. C. P. A. 16, C. A. D. 208), which record was incorporated herein. In accordance therewith the claim at 20 percent under paragraph 1558 was sustained.
March 13, 1945

No. 6120.

#### Eurasia *Import Co., Inc.*v. *United States.*

Entered at New York, N. Y. Reap. Dec. 6092. Motion by appellee.
Exhibit
          32.1
 
 
 
 CERTIFICATION
          PURSUANT
          TO
 SECTION
          906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
          OF 2002
 (18
          U.S.C. SECTION
          1350)
 
 
 In
          connection with the Quarterly Report of Walgreen Co., an Illinois corporation
          (the "Company"), on Form 10-Q for the quarter ending November 30, 2007
          as filed
          with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Report"), I, Jeffrey
          A. Rein,
          Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906
          of the
          Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of 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.
 
 
 
 
 /s/
          Jeffrey A.
          Rein
 Jeffrey
          A. Rein
 Chief
          Executive Officer
 Dated: 
          December 27, 2007
 
 A
          signed
          original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided
          to
          Walgreen Co. and will be retained by Walgreen Co. and furnished to the
          Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Cite as State v. Nickel, 128 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-739.]

T HE S TATE OF O HIO , A PPELLEE , v . N ICKEL , A PPELLANT . [Cite as State v. Nickel, 128 Ohio St.3d 353, 2011-Ohio-739.] Discretionary appeal accepted, judgment of the court of appeals vacated, and cause remanded to the court of appe als for application of State v. Johnson. (No. 2010-2131

— Submitted February 1, 2011

— Decided February 22, 2011.) A PPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Ottawa County, No. OT-10-004, 2010-Ohio-5510.

__________________ {¶ 1} The discretionary appeal is accepted. {¶ 2} The judgment of the court of appeal s is vacated on the authority of State v. Johnson , 128 Ohio St.3d 153, 2010-Ohio-6314, 942 N.E.2d 1061, and the cause is remanded to the court of appeals for application of our decision in State v. Johnson

. O’C ONNOR , C.J., and P FEIFER , L UNDBERG S TRATTON , O’D ONNELL , L ANZINGER , C UPP , and M C G EE B ROWN , JJ., concur.

__________________ Mark E. Mulligan, Ottawa County Pr osecuting Attorney, for appellee. Timothy Young, Ohio Public Defender, and Terrence K. Scott, Assistant Public Defender, for appellant.

______________________
. . 42 

OFFICEOF'I-HE A'l7ORNEY GENERAL OFTEXAS 

AUSTIN 

Ilonorablo P. U. mUmtar 

County Attorney 

din Hoge cotmt 

Bebbranrille, iI ewa 

Dear Sir; 

: Provlfng i3romd~ttle premisea Or 

others, maaoompanled bywcts a EOifioLlly d@AOUAWd by.ttiPeAm P 

hd# Of 'fbX83, i3 AOt AbO@SS~~y 

a .~oio*tlon~~~ of law, 

Replying to your raoeAttiettsr wu bate to advise that 

OAR "I&O prowls arauad the prealsea~of a~6ther at about the 

uauaL hour of retlremeAt~8~ ni&hte and,.poarlbly peers into the 

windows Of the tMOU~t,~~OfmOh $WSiSSa, does AOt AeOeSSSFily 

ooamlt SA aot that Is deAouAaed aa 4~ or&e tythe Penal Code of' 

!i?exas . Such oaoduct, s~+~picious or re~&malbls as It nury be, 

must be a~ooa~paAle&by~.&uae aat that la peoltioally QnoaAoed 

by the PeAeL Code b$'o&e it e&a iom the bash of a orimfnsl 

proaeoutioA, " '5 '. , ., 

W%~~briei‘a~bx&t& uith yaw? *Airy, you referred 

to oirermq agPir@t the $iublio psaoe, ~lrrls~ d&mncy aud chaatity, aad,,the,./bfjshsea of t&spars and aralioioua mUah?&. These 

statutes 8ad otherw eovec l +sat varLety or prohibited acts 

deslgaed to protect the prima? of the home. But, as you conoludcd, AQZL6‘-Ff them,cover the situatfan you have desolibed. 

whils‘yq~r atateamnt does not indiaate that the offending perso&vas masked OY disguised, we call your attention 

to Artialea 454a,*454b and 4540, VerAonga Panal Code ot Texas, 

making it SA OmASe ror a masked or disguised peraao to go into 

or near any private houae or disturb any or the lnhabltants 

tharoor. 

2H:db
**Exhibit 32**

 

**Certification**

 

The certification set forthbelow is being submitted in connection with the quarterly report on Form 10Qfor the period ending June 30, 2005 (the “report”) to the Securities andExchange Commission solely for the purpose of complying with Section 13a-14(b) orRule 15d-14(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended(the “Exchange Act”) and 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United StatesCode, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002.

 

A. W. Bergeron, thePresident and Thomas P. Keating, the Chief Financial Officer of AES Red Oak,L.L.C., each certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge:

 

1.                                       the reportfully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

 

2.                                       the informationcontained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, thefinancial condition and results of operations of AES Red Oak, L.L.C.

 

 
|   | /s/ A.W.  Bergeron       |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Name: A.W.  Bergeron     |
|   | President                |
|   |                     |
|   |                     |
|   | /s/ Thomas P.  Keating   |   |
|   | Name: Thomas P.  Keating |
|   | Chief Financial  Officer |

 

 

Date:  August 15,2005

 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906has been provided to AES Red Oak, L.L.C., and will be retained by AES Red Oak,L.L.C., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request.

 

----
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Bridget M. McCormack, Chief Justice

David F. Viviano,

Chief Justice Pro Tem

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Richard H. Bernstein

Elizabeth T. Clement

Megan K. Cavanagh,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 October 9, 2020

Order 

Clerk

October 9, 2020

160740(81)

DAVID A. MAPLES, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

SC: 160740

v COA: 343394 

Ct of Claims: 17-000135-MZ

STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/

By order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellant to extend the time 

for filing his reply is GRANTED. The reply submitted on October 2, 2020, is accepted for 

filing.
Case No. 6,928.

#### HURST v. DURNELL.

[1 Wash. C. C. 438.] 1

Circuit Court, D. Pennsylvania.

April Term, 1806.

Attorneys — Warrant or Attorney — Fees.

Where three members of the bar enter their appearance for the defendant, to suits instituted against him, and all are equally called upon, and act as the attorneys of the defendant, no warrant of attorney having been given by the defendant to either; the attorney’s fee, in the bill of costs, is to be equally divided among all who have acted in the case, and who have appeared to the suit.

This was a motion made to try the question, whether Mr. Gibson was entitled to the attorney’s fees in the ejectments — [see Cases Nos. 6927 and 6936] — 80 or 100 in number-brought by the lessor of Hurst, against a number of persons in the Northern Liberties; or whether Ingersoll and Rawle. are not entitled to share those fees with him. It appeared that Mr. Gibson was first applied to. by the defendants in those causes, to enter his appearance, at which time he received a small fee; that at this time, Ingersoll and Rawle had been applied to, but. upon some disagreement about the fees, offered and demanded, no engagement had been made, but the treaty was still going on. Mr. Gibson ordered his appearance to be entered before the return day. During the same term, however, to which the suits were returned, Ingersoll and Rawle were employed, to appear to all the suits, and received a payment *1028of some money. They afterwards received other fees, for the arguments in the two causes which were tried. Mr. Gibson was offered an additional fee, but from delicacy to the other gentlemen, refused. The names of all the gentlemen were entered on the docket for the defendants, and all the rules taken in the causes, defences, and motions, were taken and made by Ingersoll and Rawle. No warrant of attorney was given to either, nor is it usual in this state to give them; though it has sometimes been done.

[In Case No. 6.940 a motion for a continuance on the ground of an improper publication was denied.]

Binney & Hopkinson, for Ingersoll and Rawle.

Lewis & Levy, for Gibson.

1

 [Originally published from the MSS. of Hon. Bushrod Washington, Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, under the supervision of Richard Peters, Jr., Esq.]

BY THE COURT.

If a warrant of attorney had been given to Mr. Gibson, the gentleman first employed, he would have been exclusively entitled to the attorney’s fees. But this not being the case, the defendant had a right to employ as many attorneys as he pleased; and it appears that the three gentlemen were employed generally, to appear, without any distinction made or contemplated between their duties as counsel and attorney. We can only judge of the nature of their employment, by what they did, and all of them appear equally to have performed the duties of attorneys. All, therefore, are equally entitled to divide the attorneys’ fees.
No. 49457.

#### Protests 104959-K, etc., of Associated Merchandising Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Kinchelob, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 10-2261

MICHAEL WALTON,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

v.

LOCKHEED MARTIN AIRCRAFT CENTER,

Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Greenville. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior 

District Judge. (6:09-cv-00462-HMH)

Submitted: January 13, 2011 Decided: January 18, 2011

Before MOTZ, KING, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael Walton, Appellant Pro Se. Wendy Lyn Furhang, Stephanie 

E. Lewis, Andreas Neal Satterfield, Jr., JACKSON LEWIS, LLP, 

Greenville, South Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Michael Walton appeals the district court’s order 

adopting the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation 

granting summary judgment in favor of Lockheed Martin on 

Walton’s Title VII and breach of contract claims. We have 

reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, 

we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. 

Walton v. Lockheed Martin Aircraft Ctr., No. 6:09-cv-00462-HMH 

(D.S.C. Oct. 7, 2010). We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

AFFIRMED
Case No. 13,347.

#### STEELE v. RICHARDS.

[Cited in Roberts v. Sheldon, Case No. 11,-916. Not reported; opinion not now accessible.]
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM
            --------------------------------------------------------


We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration Statement on
Form S-8 of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the
Company's ability to continue as a going concern, dated May 27, 2005, on our
audits of the consolidated financial statements of the Company, appearing in
Advanced Technology Industries, Inc. and Subsidiaries' Annual Report on Form
10-KSB/A for the years ended December 31, 2004 and 2003, incorporated by
reference in the Prospectus, which is part of this Registration Statement.


                                        /s/ Marcum & Kliegman LLP

New York, New York
July 21, 2005