alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 28086-28087]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9573]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Proposed Collection; Comment Request

Upon Written Request, Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange 
Commission, Office of Filings and Information Services, Washington, DC 
20549.

Extension:
    Regulation 12B; OMB Control No. 3235-0062; SEC File No. 270-70.

    Notice is hereby given that pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.) the Securities and Exchange Commission 
(``Commission'') is soliciting comments on the collection of 
information summarized below. The Commission plans to submit this 
existing collection of information to the Office of Management and 
Budget for extension and approval.
    Regulation 12B (17 CFR 240.12b-1--12b-37) includes rules governing 
all registration statements pursuant to Sections 12(b) and 12(g) 
(U.S.C. 78l(b) and 78l(g)) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 
U.S.C. 78a et seq.) (``Exchange Act''), including all amendments to 
such statements and reports. The purpose of the regulation is to set 
forth guidelines for the uniform preparation of Exchange Act documents. 
Regulation 12B is assigned one burden hour for administrative 
convenience because the regulation simply prescribes the disclosure 
that must appear in other filings under the federal securities laws.
    Written comments are invited on: (a) Whether this proposed 
collection of information is necessary for the proper performance of 
the functions of the agency, including whether the information will 
have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the agency's estimate of 
the burden imposed by the collection

[[Page 28087]]

of information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity 
of the information collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of 
the collection of information on respondents, including through the use 
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information 
technology. Consideration will be given to comments and suggestions 
submitted in writing within 60 days of this publication.
    Please direct your written comments to R. Corey Booth, Director/
Chief Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, C/O 
Shirley Martinson, 6432 General Green Way, Alexandria, VA 22312; or 
send an e-mail to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bfefedfee0f2ded6d3ddd0c7ffccdadc91d8d0c9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c8989a899785a9a1a4aaa7b088bbadabe6afa7be">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: May 11, 2007.
Jill M. Peterson,
Assistant Secretary.
[FR Doc. E7-9573 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
**EXHIBIT 32.01**

CERTIFICATION 

PURSUANT TO 

SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE 

I, Walter Thomas Price III, a Managing Member of Beeland Management Company, L.L.C., the General Partner of Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P. (the “Partnership”), certify that(i) the Quarterly Report of the Partnership on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2009 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and (ii) the informationcontained in such Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Partnership. 

Date: November 16, 2009 

By: /s/ Walter Thomas Price III

Walter Thomas Price III 

Managing Member 

Beeland Management Company, L.L.C. 

General Partnerof Rogers International Raw Materials Fund, L.P.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This  schedule  contains  summary  financial   information  extracted  from  the
Registrant's  audited financial  statements for the year ended December 31, 2000
and is qualified in its entirety by reference to those financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0001057076
<NAME> THE RIDGEWOOD POWER GROWTH FUND

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                     YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-2000
<CASH>                                      15,328,703
<SECURITIES>                                15,352,626<F1>
<RECEIVABLES>                                  715,563
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            16,166,348<F2>
<PP&E>                                      21,866,580
<DEPRECIATION>                                (545,476)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              53,174,689
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          784,498<F3>
<BONDS>                                              0
<COMMON>                                             0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<OTHER-SE>                                  46,091,190<F4>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                53,174,689
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,180,231
<CGS>                                        1,924,932
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,921,948
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,447,746
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,909,206)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,909,206)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,909,206)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      2,901
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    2,901

<FN>
<F1>Investments in power project partnerships.
<F2>Includes $17,403 due from affiliates
<F2>Includes $86,131 due to affiliates.
<F3>Represents Investor Shares of beneficial interest
in Trust with capital accounts of $46,189,602 less
managing shareholder's accumulated deficit of $98,412.
</FN>

</TABLE>
An official website of the United States government         Here's how you know         
**Official websites use .mil**
A **.mil** website belongs to an official U.S. Department of Defense organization in the United States.
**Secure .mil websites use HTTPS**
 A **lock (lock )** or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .mil website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Skip to main content (Press Enter).

Defense Logistics AgencyThe Nation's Combat Logistics Support Agency

Search
Search

Search

-  Home		 
-  What DLA Offers    -  Excess Property Disposal             
  -  Document Services             
  -  Products             
  -  Services             
  -  Programs 
-  Working With DLA    -  Applications             
  -  Small Business             
  -  Federal and International Cataloging             
  -  Defense Data Standards             
  -  Events             
  -  Procurement Policies             
  -  Government Programs             
  -  Forms 
-  Organizations    -  DLA Headquarters             
  -  DLA Aviation             
  -  DLA Disposition Services             
  -  DLA Distribution             
  -  DLA Energy             
  -  DLA Land and Maritime             
  -  DLA Troop Support             
  -  DLA CENTCOM & SOCOM             
  -  DLA Europe & Africa             
  -  DLA Indo-Pacific 
-  Customer Support    -  Self Help Tools             
  -  How to Order             
  -  Find Your Order             
  -  Customer Facing Offices             
  -  Training             
  -  Brochures             
  -  Warfighter Support             
  -  Customer Service Management 
-  Careers		 
-  About DLA    -  Contact Us             
  -  Locations             
  -  Leaders             
  -  News             
  -  History             
  -  Media Gallery             
  -  DLA Campaigns 

HomeAbout DLANewsNews Article View

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

PHOTO INFORMATION

** Download

** Details

** Share

# MCAS Cherry Point Navy Boat Docks conducts annual maintenance on 75-foot mechanized landing craft 

By Lance Cpl. Andrew KingMarine Corps Air Station Cherry Point

                MARINE CORPS AIR STATION CHERRY POINT, NC  –              *Editor's note: The original story can be viewed on the Marine Corps Air Station Cherry Point website.*

**                    SHARE                

**                    PRINT                

Marine Corps Air Station Cherry PointBoatLanding Craft Mechanizedmaintenance
# C_2013055EN.01001302.xml

| 23.2.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 55/13 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

23.2.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 55/13

---

Order of the General Court of 7 January 2013 — Alfastar Benelux v Council

(Case T-274/12) (1)

1

(Actions for failure to act - Action devoid of purpose - No need to adjudicate - Actions for damages - Action manifestly lacking any foundation in law)

2013/C 55/24

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Alfastar Benelux SA (Ixelles, Belgium) (represented by: N. Keramidas and N. Korogiannakis, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: Council of the European Union (represented by: M. Vitsentzatos and E. Chatziioakeimidou, acting as Agents)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for a declaration that the Council has failed to fulfil its obligations under Article 266 TFEU in failing to take the measures necessary to comply with the judgment of the General Court of the European Union of 20 October 2011 in Case T-57/09 Alfastar Benelux v Council, not published in the ECR, and, in addition, a claim for damages under Article 340 TFEU

Alfastar Benelux

Council

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration of failure to act, brought by Alfastar Benelux SA. |
| --- | --- |

1.

There is no longer any need to adjudicate on the application for a declaration of failure to act, brought by Alfastar Benelux SA.

| 2. | The claim for damages brought by Alfastar Benelux is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law. |
| --- | --- |

2.

The claim for damages brought by Alfastar Benelux is dismissed as manifestly lacking any foundation in law.

| 3. | Alfastar Benelux shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The Council shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Alfastar Benelux. |
| --- | --- |

3.

Alfastar Benelux shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by the Council of the European Union. The Council shall bear 50 % of its own costs and pay 50 % of the costs incurred by Alfastar Benelux.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
#### Marilyn Schrager, Respondent, v Jack Klein, Appellant.

[699 NYS2d 880]

—In an action, *inter alia,*to impose a constructive trust, the defendant appeals from a resettled order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County (Feuerstein, J.), entered September 25, 1998, which granted the plaintiff’s *motion, in effect, to*preliminarily enjoin him *from*“disposing, transferring, dissipating, removing, or otherwise affecting shares of stock in various businesses, as well as all income derived directly or indirectly therefrom, except for the purposes of providing for the care and support of Rose Klein Rabinowitz”.

*297Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, and the plaintiffs motion is denied.

The record does not demonstrate the likelihood of the plaintiffs success on the merits and that the injuries alleged would not be compensable by money damages *(see, White Bay Enters. v Newsday, Inc.,*258 AD2d 520; *Graziano v Turiano,*231 AD2d 674; *Appio v Mel Lyn Off. Supplying,*222 AD2d 541). Accordingly, the plaintiff was not entitled to a preliminary injunction.

The parties’ remaining contentions are without merit. Ritter, J. P., Sullivan, Goldstein and H. Miller, JJ., concur.
Exhibit 23



                         Consent of Independent Auditors

The Board of Directors
Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.

We consent to incorporation by reference in the following registration
statements:

   File No. 333-58615 on Form S-8,
   File No. 333-94567 on Form S-8, and
   File No. 333-94571 on Form S-8

of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. of our report dated May 4, 2001, relating to the
consolidated balance sheets of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
March 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related consolidated income statements,
statements of changes in shareholders' equity and cash flows for each of the
years in the three-year period ended March 31, 2001, which report appears in the
March 31, 2001 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Hudson River Bancorp, Inc.

/s/ KPMG LLP
------------------------
Albany, New York
June 25, 2001
May 10, 1951

No. 55536.

#### Emery, Holcombe & Blair *v.*United States,

protest 159915-K.

C. D. 1318. Plaintiff’s application for rehearing denied.
#### Theo. H. Davies & Co., Ltd. *v.*United States

No. 6511.

Entry No. 386, etc.

Invoices dated Huddersfield, England, June 5, 1941, etc.

Certified July 3, 1941, etc.

Entered at Honolulu, T. H., September 10, 1941, etc.

(Decided November 14, 1946)

*Lawrence, Tuttle & Harper (George R. Tuttle*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

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

Oliver, 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.
#### Jay Nichols v. John W. Trueman.

No. 15,946.

1. Practice, Supreme *Court*— Motion *for a New Trial*— Review *of Ruling on a Question of Law."*Where the facts were agreed to the only question presented to, or passed upon by, the trial court was one of law, and a motion for a new trial was unnecessary to procure a review of the decision.

2. Tax *Deeds*— Residence *of Grantee.*A compromise tax deed recorded five years was not void on its face because of its failure to state the address or residence of the grantee.

Error from Greeley district court; Charles E. Lob-dell, judge.

Opinion filed April 10, 1909.

Reversed.

*D. R. Beckstrom,*for the plaintiff in error.

■ *George L. Reid,*and *Russell & Russell,*for the defendant in error. •

*Per Curiam:*

The motion to dismiss must be denied. The cause was submitted below on an agreed statement of facts, and a motion for a new trial was unnecessary. *(Atkins v. Nordyke,*60 Kan. 354.) The only question presented to, or passed upon by, the trial court was a question of law.

The court held the tax deed void on its face because of its failure to state the address or residence of the grantee. The deed is a compromise tax deed, and had been of récord five years when this action was commenced. Since the case was decided by the trial court we have held, in *Havel v. Abstract Co.,*76 Kan. 336, and *Trust Co. v. Davis,*76 Kan. 639, that such omission in a tax deed which has been of record for five years will not render the deed void on its face. On the authority of these cases the judgment-is reversed and the cause remanded, with directions to enter judgment for the defendant.
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 96 (Friday, May 18, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 28074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9634]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Drug Enforcement Administration


Manufacturer of Controlled Substances; Notice of Registration

    By Notice dated December 14, 2006, and published in the Federal 
Register on December 22, 2006, (71 FR 77065), Johnson Matthey Inc., 
Custom Pharmaceuticals Department, 2003 Nolte Drive, West Deptford, New 
Jersey 08066, made application by letter to the Drug Enforcement 
Administration (DEA) to be registered as a bulk manufacturer of 
Remifentanil (9739), a basic class of controlled substance listed in 
schedule II.
    The company plans on producing this item for sale to its customers, 
who are final dosage manufacturers.
    No comments or objections have been received. DEA has considered 
the factors in 21 U.S.C. 823(a) and determined that the registration of 
Johnson Matthey Inc to manufacture the listed basic class of controlled 
substance is consistent with the public interest at this time. DEA has 
investigated Johnson Matthey Inc to ensure that the company's 
registration is consistent with the public interest. The investigation 
has included inspection and testing of the company's physical security 
systems, verification of the company's compliance with State and local 
laws, and a review of the company's background and history. Therefore, 
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 823, and in accordance with 21 CFR 1301.33, the 
above named company is granted registration as a bulk manufacturer of 
the basic class of controlled substance listed.

    Dated: May 9, 2007.
Joseph T. Rannazzisi,
Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office of Diversion Control, Drug 
Enforcement Administration.
[FR Doc. E7-9634 Filed 5-17-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-09-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

                            SECTION 906 CERTIFICATION






<PAGE>

                                  Exhibit 32.1

                     CERTIFICATION OF DISCLOSURE 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 Quarterly  Report of Infinity  Capital Group,  Inc. (the
"Company")  on Form 10-Q for the period  ending  June 30, 2009 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Gregory
H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer,  President, Chief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board of the Company,  certify, pursuant to 18 USC section 1350,
as adopted  pursuant to section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

         (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.


Dated: August 19, 2009


/s/Gregory H. Laborde
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gregory H. Laborde, Principal Executive Officer, President,
Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board


This  certification  accompanies  the  Report  pursuant  to  Section  906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002 and shall not,  except to the extent required by the
Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002,  be deemed  filed by the  Company  for  purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.
A99A0234.

#### PALMORE v. THE STATE.

(511 SE2d 624)

Decided February 5, 1999.

*Douglas C. Rogers,*for appellant.

Johnson, Chief Judge.

Anthony Palmore pled guilty to possession of cocaine and was sentenced to serve five years in prison. He appeals from the sentence, claiming the sentence is too harsh, is not justified by the circumstances, and was imposed by the court “in a mechanical fashion without consideration of the facts and circumstances surrounding the case.” We affirm.

“The Eighth Amendment protects against cruel and unusual punishment, a concept which prohibits, among other things, arbitrary and disproportionate sentences. Unless a sentence is so overly severe or excessive in proportion to the offense as to shock the conscience, a legislatively authorized punishment does not ordinarily exceed the constitutional bound. It could, if the court abused its discretion in imposing a sentence which is excessive and disproportionate in a specific case.” (Citations and punctuation omitted.) *Burgos v. State,*233 Ga. App. 897, 901-902 (3) (505 SE2d 543) (1998).

Our legislature has provided that a first conviction of possession of cocaine carries with it a sentence of two to fifteen years imprisonment. OCGA § 16-13-30 (c). Thus, the five-year sentence imposed by the trial court falls within the statutory limit. Palmore’s sentence was not so overly severe or excessive as to shock the conscience. See *Burgos,*supra at 902.

Although Palmore asserts that the trial court did not fulfill its duty of “tailoring the sentence to fit the offender,” he does not explain how the sentence is ill-fitting, nor does he demonstrate how his assertion is supported by the record. During a pre-sentence hearing, the trial court afforded Palmore the opportunity to offer evidence in mitigation of punishment. In so doing, Palmore apologized for committing the charged offense and admitted that he had other felony convictions, but made no argument supporting a lesser sentence.

There is a presumption that a sentence was correctly imposed, and the burden of showing that a sentence was not correctly imposed is with the party asserting its impropriety. *State v. Freeman,*198 Ga. App. 553, 557 (3) (402 SE2d 529) (1991). Because there is no presumption of impropriety and Palmore has shown nothing that would call the sentence into question, this enumeration is without merit. See *Thomas v. State,*218 Ga. App. 455, 456 (2) (462 SE2d 166) (1995).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*McMurray, P. J., and Ruffin, J., concur.*

*286
      *J. Brown Moseley, District Attorney, Charles M. Stines, Anthony S. Gunn, Assistant District Attorneys,*for appellee.
No. A-697.

#### DeChamplain *v.*Lovelace et al.

C. A. 8th Cir. Reapplication for bail, presented to Mr. Justice Blackmun, and by him referred to the Court, denied.