alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 146 (Wednesday, July 30, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 40811-40812]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-425-000]


Sabine Pipe Line Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC Gas 
Tariff

July 24, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 22, 1997, Sabine Pipe Line Company 
(Sabine) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Second 
Revised Volume No. 1, the following revised tariff sheet proposed to be 
effective August 25, 1997:

First Revised Sheet No. 273

    Sabine states that the revised tariff sheet reflects a change in 
the right-of-first-refusal contract term cap, in compliance with Order 
636-C.
    Sabine states that copies of this filing are being mailed to its 
customers, state

[[Page 40812]]

commissions and other interested parties.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
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 motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-19972 Filed 7-29-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
31.1





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED


PURSUANT
TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Robert
T. Faber, certify that:




1. I
have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of GoldSpring,
Inc.;




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
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this
report;





3.Based
on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information
included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the
financial condition, results of operations, and cash flows of the registrant as
of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. I am
responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures
(as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and
have:





a)designed
such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information
relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made
known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this annual report is being prepared;





b)evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a
date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this annual report (the
"Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation
Date;





5. I have
disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and
the audit committee of the registrant's board of directors (or persons
performing the equivalent functions):





a)all
significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which
could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize,
and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's auditors any
material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b) any
fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who
have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls.





/s/ ROBERT T. FABERRobert
      T. FaberPresident
      and Chief Executive Officer and
                Chief
      Financial Officer




Date:
August 14, 2009
#### R. H. Macy & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 7696.

Invoices dated London, England, October 1945, etc.

Certified October 22, 1945, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., December 4, 1945.

Entry Nos. 725559/2; 725559/5.

(Decided April 13, 1949)

*John B. Rafter*for the plaintiff.

*David N. Edelstein,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Cole, Judge:

(Abstract) These appeals for reappraisement of various items of merchandise concern the so-called British Purchase Tax, described in the law of the United Kingdom entitled, “Finance (No. 2) Act 1940 3 & 4 Geo. 6 Ch. 48.” The said tax was held not to be an item to be included in foreign value as defined in section 402 (c) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (c)). *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. 183, C. A. D. 334.

Undisputed facts establish that the proper basis for appraisement of the instant merchandise is export value, section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U. S. C. § 1402 (d)), and that such statutory values for the articles in question are the appraised values less additions made on entry because of advances in similar cases.
Filed by Bowne Pure Compliance



 




Exhibit 10.6

Amendment to Existing Warrants




This Amendment to Warrant and the Warrant amended hereby have not been registered under the
Securities Act of 1933 (the “Act”), and are “restricted securities” as that term is defined in Rule
144 under the Act. The securities may not be offered for sale, sold or otherwise transferred
except pursuant to an effective registration statement under the Act, or pursuant to an exemption
from registration under the Act, the availability of which is to be established to the satisfaction
of the Company.



***SMART MOVE, INC.***




CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF WARRANT ISSUED ON SEPTEMBER 2, 2007 TO PURCHASE 100,000 SHARES

OF COMMON STOCK OF SMART MOVE, INC. AT AN EXERCISE PRICE OF $2.50, EXPIRING AT 5:00 P.M. ON

SEPTEMBER 2, 2010




THIS CERTIFICATE OF AMENDMENT OF WARRANT is dated January 22, 2008 and certifies that the
Warrant previously issued to Thomas P. Grainger dated September 2, 2007 and expiring at 5:00 P.M.
on September 2, 2010 (“Existing Warrant”), has been amended pursuant to an Amended and Restated
Note and Warrant Purchase Agreement of even date herewith signed by the Smart Move, Inc. (the
“Company”) and the Holder of the Warrant to which this amendment pertains, Thomas P. Grainger.



For value exchanged, the Company and the Holder have agreed that the Exercise Price of $2.50
currently applicable under the Existing Warrant shall be, and hereby is, revised to be $1.00 per
Share.



The only change the parties wish to make to the Existing Warrant is to specify a revised
Exercise Price as above provided. The parties intend all other terms of the Existing Warrant to
remain the same.



IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Certificate of Amendment of Warrant has been duly executed as of the
day and year first above written.



	 	 	 	 	 
	 	SMART MOVE, INC.

 	 
	 	/s/Chris Sapyta
 	 
	 	Chris Sapyta 	 
	 	President
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 02-6601

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

RAYMOND MCARTHUR BEALL,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at New Bern. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CR-95-57-F)

Submitted: June 13, 2002 Decided: June 19, 2002

Before WIDENER, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Raymond McArthur Beall, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Raymond McArthur Beall appeals the district court’s order

denying his motion for review of sentence. We have reviewed the

record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible

error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district

court. See United States v. Beall, No. CR-95-57-F (E.D.N.C. Mar.

19, 2002). 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
```

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 191 (Monday, October 3, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 61134]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-25455]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7921]

Waiver of Restriction on Assistance to the Central Government of 
Chad

    Pursuant to Section 7086(c)(2) of the Department of State, Foreign 
Operations, and Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. 
L.111-117) as carried forward by the Full-Year Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2011 (Div. B, Pub. L. 112-10) (``the Act''), and 
Department of State Delegation of Authority Number 245-1, I hereby 
determine that it is important to the national interest of the United 
States to waive the requirements of Section 7086(c)(1) of the Act with 
respect to Chad and I hereby waive such restriction.
    This determination shall be reported to the Congress, and published 
in the Federal Register.

    Dated: July 29, 2011.
Thomas Nides,
 Deputy Secretary of State for Management and Resources .
[FR Doc. 2011-25455 Filed 9-30-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-26-P
```
# C_2013352EN.01002601.xml

| 30.11.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 352/26 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

30.11.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 352/26

---

Judgment of the Civil Service Tribunal (Third Chamber) of 23 October 2013 — Solberg v EMCDDA

(Case F-148/12) (1)

1

(Civil service - Former member of the temporary staff - Staff report - Legal interest in bringing proceedings - Obligation to state reasons - Scope of discretion)

2013/C 352/50

Language of the case: French

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Ulrik Solberg (Lisbon, Portugal) (represented by: D. Abreu Caldas, A. Coolen, S. Orlandi, J.-N. Louis and É. Marchal, lawyers)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction (EMCDDA) (represented by: D. Storti, Agent, and by B. Wägenbaur, lawyer)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application to annul the decision establishing the applicant’s staff report for the period from 1 January to 31 December 2011

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Tribunal:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Solberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Solberg to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction.

---

(1)  OJ C 71, 09.03.2013, p. 30.

1

---
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 32.a
                                  ------------

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

                                 18 U.S.C. 1350,

                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Amended Quarterly Report of Morgan Beaumont, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period ended March 31, 2005, as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Clifford Wildes, in my capacity as Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

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

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

                                       /S/ CLIFFORD WILDES
                                       -------------------
Date: November 14, 2005                Clifford Wildes, Chief Executive Officer
#### D. C. Andrews & Co., Inc. *v.*United States

No. 6588.

Entry No. 741806, etc.

Invoices dated Birmingham, England, January 28, 1946, etc.

Certified January 28, 1946, etc.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 1, 1946, etc.

(Decided December 10, 1946)

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

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

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

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

(Stipulation omitted.)

On the agreed facts I find the export value, as that value is defined in section 402 (d) of the Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for the determination of *467the 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.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 19-1967

___________________________

Eloy Galarza-Sanchez

lllllllllllllllllllllPetitioner

v.

William P. Barr, Attorney General of the United States

lllllllllllllllllllllRespondent

 ____________

Petition for Review of an Order of the

 Board of Immigration Appeals

 ____________

 Submitted: February 14, 2020

Filed: February 21, 2020

[Unpublished]

____________

Before BENTON, SHEPHERD, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Mexican citizen Eloy Galarza-Sanchez petitions for review of an order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals dismissing his appeal from the decision of an

immigration judge, which denied his motion to terminate removal proceedings, and

ordered him removed to Mexico. Having jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252, this

court denies the petition because Galarza-Sanchez’s challenge to the agency’s
jurisdiction over his removal proceedings is foreclosed by this court’s precedent. See

Ali v. Barr, 924 F.3d 983, 986 (8th Cir. 2019).

The petition is denied. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-2-
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 03030

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 03030\03030_Checklist_092310_version34.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

03030\03030_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

03030\03030_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 03030\03030_PartA.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03030\03030_PartE.xls Plant submitted survey file

x 03030\03030_PartH.xls Plant submitted survey file

03030\Certification Statement Plant ID 03030.pdf Plant certification statement

x 03030\Supplemental Documentation\03030_A5-2 Brazos Valley Facility Map (with Legend).pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

x 03030\Supplemental Documentation\03030_A5-3 Water Balance Brazos.pdf Plant submitted supplemental files to the survey

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Norem, Nancy 
	to:
	Joe Kordzi
	10/08/2010 12:30 PM
	Cc:
	"Gannon, Maureen", "McGuffey, Mack", "Lucas, Kyle J.", "Fischer, Diane M."
	Show Details



History:	This message has been replied to and forwarded.




Joe,
 
Attached [COMPLETE 100930 EPA Questions on OAQPS.pdf] is a document that responds to questions you sent on 9/30/2010 
concerning the SJGS BART cost analysis.
 
Nancy Norem
Exhibit 10.1 to CapSource Financial, Inc. Form 8-K Dated January 28, 2008








Exhibit 10.1


 


AMENDMENT NUMBER 2 TO MASTER TERM LOAN AGREEMENT 


DATED OCTOBER 31, 2007 and AMENDED DECEMBER 4, 2007


 


This Amendment is entered into this 28th  day of January 2008, by and between Randolph  M. Pentel and CapSource Financial, Inc., a Colorado corporation, (collectively “Parties”).


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into a loan agreement dated October 31, 2007 in the original principal amount of Seven Hundred Fifty Thousand Dollars ($750,000) (“Master Term Loan Agreement”); 


 


WHEREAS, the Parties entered into an amendment of the Master Term Loan Agreement on December 4, 2007 whereby the principal amount was increased to One Million Dollars ($1,000,000) (“Amendment No. 1”);


 


WHEREAS, the Parties desire to further modify the terms of the Master Term Loan Agreement; 


 


NOW THEREFORE for good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is acknowledged, the Parties agree as follows:


 


1.         That portion of Article 1 of the Master Term Loan Agreement, as amended by Amendment No. 1  setting forth the term “Loan Amount” shall be and is hereby amended to read One Million Two Hundred and Fifty Thousand Dollars ($1,250,000). 


 


2.            All other terms and conditions of the Master Term Loan Agreement, as amended, remain unchanged and are hereby ratified.


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this amendment as of the date first set forth above.


 


 





	
             
 	
            /s/ Randolph M. Pentel
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            Randolph M. Pentel
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            CapSource Financial, Inc.
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            /s/ Steven E. Reichert
 	
             
 	
             
 	
             
 
	
             
 	
            By Steven E. Reichert
 Its Vice President and General Counsel
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except

under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule 47.5.4.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 96-40191

(Summary Calendar)

EARNEST BURR,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

VERSUS

JOE URBANSKI, Individually and in his official capacity;

PETROCHEMICAL DRAFTING COMPANY and DOW CHEMICAL, U.S.A., 

 Defendants-Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Southern District of Texas

(G-93-CV-810)

September 17, 1996

Before GARWOOD, JOLLY, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Earnest Burr claims on appeal that the district

court erroneously granted summary judgment in his racial

discrimination action under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.

§ 2000e, et seq., against Dow Chemical Company, Petro-Chemical
Drafting Company, and Petro-Chemical’s president Joe Urbanski. 

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record and

conclude that the district court did not err in granting summary

judgment. The judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2229 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2229

   To authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas 
       pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purpose.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 22, 2012

Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Baucus) introduced the following bill; 
   which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and 
                           Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To authorize the issuance of right-of-way permits for natural gas 
       pipelines in Glacier National Park, and for other purpose.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. PERMITS FOR EXISTING NATURAL GAS PIPELINES.

    (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may issue right-of-
way permits for each natural gas pipeline (including all appurtenances 
used in the operation of the natural gas pipeline) that, as of March 1, 
2012, is located within the boundary of Glacier National Park.
    (b) Terms and Conditions.--A permit issued under subsection (a) 
shall be--
            (1) issued as a right-of-way renewal, consistent with laws 
        (including regulations) generally applicable to utility rights-
        of-way within units of the National Park System, including the 
        Act of March 4, 1911 (16 U.S.C. 5);
            (2) for a width of not more than 50 feet on either side of 
        the centerline of the natural gas pipeline; and
            (3) subject to any terms and conditions that the Secretary 
        of the Interior determines to be necessary.
                                 <all>
```
Page 1 of 3

Disposition Comments

Docket No: FAA-2010-1303 These comments are in

Directorate ID: 2010-SW-049-AD response to an SNPRM

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

Next Step: FRAN SNPRM

 No Comments/Only Supportive Comments Received – If this box is checked, no signatures are 

required.

No Has the referenced service information been revised since the NPRM was issued? If yes, 

list latest revision and attach a copy. Note that changes beyond the scope of the previously 

published NPRM will require a new notice. Contact the Directorate focal point for guidance.

Instructions: Summarize all comments by issue (not by commenter) and provide your recommended resolution of 

each issue. All comments relating to the same issue should be discussed together. Do not list all of the issues 

from one commenter together. If changes to the AD are required based on the comments received, explain why and 

describe in detail what change(s) you recommend. Reference FAA-IR-M-8040.1C Chapter 9.

ISSUE 1: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD: 

If NO, we don’t agree because 

ISSUE 2: Select one of the following: 

If other, explain: 

Commenter(s): 

What change to the AD action is requested? 

Why is the change requested or how is it justified? 

Do we agree? 

If YES, we agree because Make the following changes to the AD: 

If PARTIALLY AGREE, we agree with because We disagree with because 

Make the following changes to the AD:
Page 2 of 3

If NO, we don’t agree because 

For additional issues, double-click here
Page 3 of 3

Signature Section

Signature indicates concurrence with this action.

Originating Office Tracking No.: 

ASE Printed Name: Date

Branch Manager Date
No. 96-5798.

#### Henderson *v.*Illinois.

Sup. Ct. Ill. Certio-rari denied.