alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 100 (Thursday, May 24, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 29142]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-9975]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-305-033]


CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi River Transmission Corporation; 
Notice of Negotiated Rates

May 18, 2007.
    Take notice that on April 27, 2007, CenterPoint Energy--Mississippi 
River Transmission Corporation (MRT) tendered for filing an amended 
negotiated rate agreement for Rate Schedule PALS service between MRT 
and Laclede Energy Resources, Inc. MRT requests that the Commission 
accept and approve the transaction to be effective May 1, 2007.
    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#682e2d3a2b27060401060d3b1d1818071a1c280e0d1a0b460f071e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bcfaf9eefff3d2d0d5d2d9efc9ccccd3cec8fcdad9cedf92dbd3ca">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
 [FR Doc. E7-9975 Filed 5-23-07; 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>
No. 44347.

#### Petition 6001-R of Alex Schechter Corp. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

The record disclosed that full and complete information concerning the transaction was given to the appraiser and that there was no intention to defraud the revenue. The petition was therefore granted.
#### Lataunya WILLIAMS v. Douglas Lee WILLIAMS.

No. 98-CC-3087.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 6, 1999.

In re Williams, Douglas Lee; — Defendants); applying for supervisory and/or remedial writs; Parish of Lincoln, 3rd Judicial District Court, Div. “B”, No. 45,137; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 32059-CW.

Denied.

LEMMON, J., not on panel.
#### In the Matter of Charles Le Bruno*, a Person Alleged to be a Juvenile Delinquent.

Family Court, Juvenile Term, New York County,

January 27, 1966.

*J. Lee Rankin, Corporation Counsel (Frances X. Galdi*of counsel), for petitioner. *Di Fede & Martoccia {Arthur R. Martoccia*of counsel), for respondent.

*

 All names used herein are fictitious for purposes of publication.

Harold A. Felix, J.

After hearing and reserved decision on the within petition and motions addressed thereto charging the respondent a juvenile delinquent by reason of acts which if committed by an adult would be crimes: respondent’s motions to suppress the statements given to the police and subsequently to the District Attorney are denied. On evaluation and assessment of the facts and circumstances in respect thereto I find no duress or coercion, direct or constructive, suffered by this respondent, aged 15 years, who appeared in the police station at one-thirty in the morning on September 5,1965 accompanied by his mother under no compulsion and there voluntarily related what had transpired earlier concerning the shooting of the boy’s cousin Ronald Roberts and the part played by the respondent in the alleged shooting of one Zack Daniels.

However, on review of the record in its totality, I am not satisfied that the testimony adduced would permit the court to *506make any finding that the acts attributed to the respondent as crimes if committed by an adult have been proven as such by the necessary evidentiary quantum. I note that the Grand Jury in New York County failed to return a true bill against this respondent as well as against two other alleged accomplices to the shooting of Zack Daniels returning an indictment only against one Leonard Edwards, a juvenile who allegedly fired the gun. Further, in respect to the death of the boy’s cousin in the discharge of a weapon allegedly belonging to the boy’s father in the latter’s home which criminal agency was never produced and prompted a dismissal of a complaint against the boy’s father for unlawful possession of a gun, I cannot on the proof before me make a finding that the acts of the boy in respect to this death constitute manslaughter in any degree.

But the testimony as unfolded has demonstrated by preponderant weight that the respondent is a person who has consorted with people of undesirable or questionable character and by reason thereof has developed a callous attitude and wanton indifference to propriety, law and authority. The court is prompted therefore in the interests of the boy, his parent and the community, on its own motion and pursuant to its authority under the Family Court Act, to substitute through its indorsement hereon for the petition herein one for a person in need of supervision and on such petition finds from the testimony of the hearing on January 21, 1966 as a matter of fact, that in or about September, 1965 respondent was associating with undesirable persons and engaging in conduct which in the court’s view constituted incorrigibility and warrants a finding that the boy is in need of supervision.
No. 42121.

#### Protests 788113-G, etc., of Swift & Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of Abstract 40880 the protests were sustained.
Case No. 8,723.

#### McCORMICK v. MAGRUDER.

[2 Cranch, C. C. 227.]1

Circuit Court, District of Columbia.

April Term, 1821.

Mistake — Failure ok Clerk to Enter Appearance — Ejectment—Habere Facias— Motion to Quash.

In ejectment, if the clerk by mistake omit to enter the tenant’s appearance at the first term, and judgment be entered against the casual ejector, and a habere facias be issued, the court will, at a subsequent term, upon affidavits, quash the habere facias, and rescind the judgment, and permit the tenant to appear, upon entering into tlie common rule.

[Cited in Reiling v. Bolier, Case No. 11,671. Cited in brief in Blagden v. Broadrup, App. Fed. Cas.]

In ejectment there had been judgment at December term, 1819, against the casual eject- or by default, and a habere facias issued returnable to this term.

Mr. Taney, for the tenant,

moved the court to quash the execution, and rescind the judgment, and permit the tenant to appear, upon entering into the common rule.

This motion was founded upon affidavits that Mr. Marbury ordered the clerk to enter his appearance for the tenant before the judgment ivas entered, but the clerk, by mistake, entered it in another case.

Mr. Wallaeh and Mr. Jones, for plaintiff,

mentioned the case of Baker v. Glover [Case No. 769]. And sefe, also, Sherburne v. King [Id. 12.759], at June term, 1820, and Jones v. Llwellyn [Id. 7,477], at March term, 1820, and December term, 1819.

THE COURT,

upon the affidavits and motion, quashed the habere facias, rescinded the judgment, and permitted the tenant to appear.
Exhibit 32.2











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 Quarterly Report of DiCon Fiberoptics, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jannett Wang, Vice President of Administration of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes - Oxley Act of 2002, that:





|(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/ Jannett Wang


Jannett Wang


Vice President of Administration


(chief financial officer)





November 12, 2004





This certification is made solely for purpose of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, subject to the knowledge standard contained therein, and not for any other purpose.
Exhibit
99.8


(English
Translation)





Agreement
to Defer Payment for Property Transfer





Party A:
Shaanxi Suo’ang Biological Science and Technology Company Limited





Address:
Rm 2205, Suite A, Zhengxin Bd, Gaoxin 1 Rd, Xi'an City





Party B:
Hanzhong Si Xiong Ke Chuang Business Company Limited





Address:
Forestry Bureau Bd, West Jiangtan Rd, Hantai Dist, Hanzhong City





1. The
agreed payment date for property transfer





Pursuant
to the Property Transfer Agreement entered into by Parties A and B on June 19,
2006, payment due date was December 19, 2006, but due to Party A, payment date
was deferred to May 31, 2007.





2.
Reasons for a further deferring of payment:





(a).
Party B’s reason: Because Party A could not timely turn over the property
transfer documentation to Party B, Party B thus could not timely remit payment,
as Party B is to make payment is based upon receipt of the property certificate
after completion of the property transfer.





(b).
Party A’s reason: Party A has been diligently handling the property transfer,
but as the Hanzhong House Administrative Bureau has not yet completed the
procedures to separate the interests of the other owners of the building, the
property transfer could not be completed on time.





3.
Deferred payment date:





Based on
the above-stated reasons, Parties A and B agree as follows after mutual
consultation:





(a).
Party A shall complete the transfer procedures related to the property
certificate before October 31, 2007.





(b).
Party B shall remit the remaining balance of RMB 8,200,000 to the designated
account of Party A on the property transfer assumption date, prior to which
Party A shall not charge Party B any fees. If Party A is unable to timely
complete the property transfer, Party B shall have the right to terminate the
Property Transfer Agreement.





4. This
agreement shall have the same legal effect as the Property Transfer Agreement,
and shall be effective after execution by both parties.





5. This
agreement shall have two copies, with each party to hold one
copy.














Party A
      (Signature):
            Party B
      (Signature):Legal
      Representative: /s/ Baowen
      Ren
            Legal
      Representative: /s/ Yanjun ZhaoAgent:
            Agent:Signature
      Date: June 21,
      2007
            Signature
      Date: June 21, 2007
Exhibit 4.32



LOGO



Date:       22nd September 2004



Our ref: CR/LC/TEAM1/CEB



CONFIDENTIAL



Pentalpha Hong Kong Ltd.

21/F., Citicorp Centre, 18 Whitfield Road,

Causeway Bay,

Hong Kong.



Attn.: Mr. John Sham / Mr. Samuel Leung



Dear Sirs,



BANKING FACILITIES : PENTALPHA HONG KONG LTD.



We refer to our letter dated 24th September 2003 setting out the facilities made available to your company.



Following our recent discussions, we confirm that the facilities have been renewed on unchanged basis except the Fixed Loan Facility has been fully repaid.



If you have any queries, please contact our Manager, Credit & Marketing
Mr. Kevin Choy, whose telephone number is 2821-1845.



We are pleased to be of service to you and take this opportunity to thank you again for your custom.



Yours faithfully,

For and on behalf of

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (HONG KONG) LIMITED

LOGO



|                                   
|-----------------------------------
|                                   
|/s/    JOSEPHINE TO                
|Josephine To                       
|Senior Credit Documentation Manager



JT/PY/mc



Standard Chartered Bank
(Hong Kong) Limited LOGO

Wholesale Bank

Credit Risk Control



11th Floor Standard Chartered Tower

388 Kwun Tong Road Kwun Tong Hong Kong
#### Lawrence GRAVES, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 72742.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

July 21, 1998.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 30,1998.

David C. Hemingway, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Karen L. Kramer, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before ROBERT G. DOWD, P.J., and CRAHAN and RICHARD B. TEITELMAN JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Movant Lawrence Graves entered an *Alford*plea of guilty to charges of second degree assault on a law enforcement officer, Section 565.082.1(1), RSMo 1994, and driving while intoxicated, Section 577.010, RSMo 1994. Movant was sentenced to ten years for the assault and six months for driving while intoxicated. Execution of the sentence was suspended and Movant was placed on probation, which he ultimately violated. Movant’s probation was revoked and he subsequently filed a Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Movant now appeals the judgment denying his motion without an evidentiary hearing.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties, the legal file and the record on appeal, and we find that the motion court’s judgment is based upon findings of fact and conclusions of law that are not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). An extended opinion reciting the detailed facts and restating principles of law would serve no precedential or jurisprudential purpose. However, a memorandum opinion has been provided to the parties for their use only setting forth the reasons for our decision. We affirm the judgment
Exhibit 31.1

            PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION

I, Brett D. Mayer, certify that:

1.     I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Bingham Canyon
Corporation;

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
issuers'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.


                               /s/ Brett D. Mayer
Date: July 30, 2003            ___________________________________________
                               Brett D. Mayer, Principal Executive Officer
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 


40 CFR Part 81 


[Docket: EPA-RI0-0AR-2010-0432] 


Finding of Attainment for PMIO for the Mendenhall Valley PM10 Nonattainment Area, 


Alaska 


AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA finds that the Mendenhall Valley nonattainment area in Alaska attained the 

National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than or equal to a nominal ten micrometers (PM 10) as of December 31, 1995. 

DATES: Comments must be received on or before [insert date 30 days from the date of 

publication in the Federal Register]. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-RI0-0AR-2010-0432, 

by any of the following methods: 

• 	 www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments. 

• 	 Email: body.steve@epa.gov 

• 	 Mail: Steve Body, u.s. EPA Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Taxies (AWT-I07), 

1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle WA, 98101 

• 	 Hand Delivery / Courier: U.S. EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 900, Seattle 
2 

WA, 98101. Attention: Steve Body, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, A WT - 107. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during normal hours of operation, and special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed information. 

Please see the direct final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal Register for 

detailed instructions on how to submit comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steve Body at telephone number: (206) 553­

0782, e-mail address: body.steve@epa.gov, or the above EPA, Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

For further information, please see the direct final action, of the same title, which is located in the 

Rules section of this Federal Register. EPA is approving the attainment determination as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the 

preamble to the direct final rule. If EPA receives no adverse comments, EPA will not take 

further action on this proposed rule. 

If EPA receives adverse comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not 

take effect. EPA will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties 
3 

interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if we receive 

adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may 

be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule 

that are not the subject of an adverse comment. 

DATED: Ce (~-;).I (cJ ~~.1U= ---r:>.c: ]-v \ -:S-, e.. l ~Y'...,.'i:. ~ 

'R i::q \ OU~L ADV\A' ~ \ s-r·{t.c.\OJ'<.. 

E:fA Region 10. 

)
No. 48228.

#### Protests 877570-G, etc., of Millinery Clearing House, Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

Following Abstract 47291 the hats or hoods in question were held dutiable at 25 percent ad valorem under paragraph 1504 (b) (1) as in chief value of ramie, not blocked or trimmed, and not bleached, dyed, colored, or stained, in accordance with stipulation of counsel.
#### Christopher J. FANN, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 73629.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

Sept. 29, 1998.

David A. Bruns, Asst. Sp. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Daniel W. Follett, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before HOFF, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Christopher Fann, appeals from the circuit court’s judgment denying his Rule 24.035 motion for post-conviction relief. Appellant contends the court clearly erred in denying his claim his counsel was ineffective for failing to inform him that he would have to serve 50 percent of his sentence before eligible for parole or early release pursuant to section 558.019, RSMo 1994.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and conclude the trial court’s determination is not clearly erroneous. Rule 24.035(k). The record conclusively refutes appellant’s point of error and no hearing is required. Appellant knew he would have to serve 50 percent of his sentence, because both the prosecutor and the court informed him on the record at the guilty plea hearing. As no jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opin*287ion, we affirm the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
EXHIBIT 32.1


                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION


     In connection  with the Quarterly  Report of Las Palmas Mobile Estates (the
"Company")  on Form 10-QSB for the quarter  ending  June 30, 2007 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Diana L.  Hassan,  President  of the  Company,  certify,  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C.
Section 1350, as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of
2002, that, to my knowledge:

     (1)  The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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


Date: August 14, 2007



                                        By: /s/ DIANA L. HASSAN
                                            ___________________________
                                                Diana L. Hassan
                                                President