alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
```
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4024-4025]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-2069]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Internal Revenue Service

26 CFR Parts 1 and 301

[REG-209803-95]
RIN 1545-AU08

Magnetic Media Filing Requirements for Information Returns; 
Hearing Cancellation

AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

ACTION: Cancellation of notice of public hearing on proposed 
regulations.

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

SUMMARY: This document provides notice of cancellation of a public 
hearing on proposed Income Tax Regulations relating to the requirements 
for filing information returns on magnetic media or in other machine-
readable form under section 6011(e) of the Internal Revenue Code.

DATES: The public hearing originally scheduled for Wednesday, February 
5, 1997, beginning at 10:00 a.m. is cancelled.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mike Slaughter of the Regulations 
Unit,

[[Page 4025]]

Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate), (202) 622-7190, (not a toll-free 
number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject of the public hearing is 
proposed regulations under section 6011(e) of the Internal Revenue 
Code. A notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing 
appearing in the Federal Register on Thursday, October 10, 1996 (61 FR 
53161), announced that the public hearing on proposed regulations under 
section 6011 of the Internal Revenue Code would be held on Wednesday, 
February 5, 1997, beginning at 10:00 a.m., in the Commissioner's 
Conference Room, Room 3313, Internal Revenue Building, 1111 
Constitution Avenue, NW. Washington, D.C.

    The public hearing scheduled for Wednesday, February 5, 1997, is 
cancelled.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 97-2069 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
```
Before the Second Division,

October 6, 1943

No. 48831.

#### Protests 944496-G, etc., of Armand Schwab & Co., Inc. (New York).

Opinion by

Tilson, J.

The record showed that certain of the items consist of (1) hemp hats similar to those the subject of *United States*v. *Armand Schwab*(30 C. C. P. A. 72, C. A. D. 218), (2) hemp knotted straw hats similar to those involved in Abstract 46497, and (3) hats of ramie similar to those involved in Abstract 47291. In accordance therewith the claim as to these items was sustained.
No. 99-5699.

#### Rice *v.*United States.

C. A. 8th Cir. Motion of petitioner for leave to proceed *in forma pauperis*granted. Certiorari granted, judgment vacated, and case remanded for further consideration in light of *Roe*v. *Flores-Ortega, ante,*p. 470.
11TH COURT OF APPEALS

EASTLAND, TEXAS

JUDGMENT

Manuel Santiago-Negron a/k/a * From the 35th District Court

Juan Manuel Santiago-Negron of Brown County,

a/k/a Juan Negron-Santiago, Jr., Trial Court No. CR27440.

Vs. No. 11-22-00313-CR * April 4, 2024

The State of Texas, * Memorandum Opinion by Bailey, C.J.

(Panel consists of: Bailey, C.J.,

Trotter, J., and Williams, J.)

This court has inspected the record in this cause and concludes that there is no 

error in the judgment below. Therefore, in accordance with this court’s opinion, 

the judgment of the trial court is in all things affirmed.
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 accompanying Annual Report of Summit  Environmental
Corporation,  Inc.  (the  "Company")  on Form  10-KSB for the fiscal  year ended
December 31, 2004 (the "Report"), I, Chris Dellinges, Chief Financial Officer of
the Company, hereby certify that to my knowledge:

      (1) The Report fully  complies with the  requirements  of Section 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. ss.78o(d)); 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:  April 20, 2005
                                                     /s/ Chris Dellinges
                                                     ------------------------
                                                     Chris Dellinges
                                                     Chief Financial Officer


      The above certification is furnished solely pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C. ss.1350) and is not being filed as part of
the Form 10-KSB or as a separate disclosure document.

                                                                Page 1 of 1 Page
U.S. Dept Commerce/NOAA/NMFS/NWFSC/Publications NOAA F/NWC-198 Determining Minimum Viable Populations under the Endangered Species Act 
Figure A5. Relationship between persistence probability profiles (indexed by population size N) and social indifference curves (indexed by utility U). Expected utility exceeds nominal utility in this example. 

Use your browser's BACK button to return to the text.

Table of Contents
**Exhibit 23.0**

**Consent of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**

The Board of Directors and Shareholders 

Planar Systems, Inc. and Subsidiaries: 

We consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statement on Form S-3 (File No. 333-89372) and Registration Statements on Forms S-8 (File Nos. 33-82696, 33-82688, 33-90258, 333-45191, 333-37502, 333-86886, 333-101145, 333-101147, 333-101148, 333-123684,333-138064, and 333-138063) of Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries of our reports dated December 12, 2006, with respect to the consolidated balance sheets of Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries as of September 29, 2006 andSeptember 30, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, shareholders’ equity and cash flows for each of the years in the three-year period ended September 29, 2006, and management’s assessment of theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 29, 2006, and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 29, 2006, which reports appear in the September 29, 2006 AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Planar Systems, Inc. and subsidiaries. 

Our report dated December 12, 2006, on the consolidated financial statements, containsan explanatory paragraph that states, as described in Notes 1 and 6 to the consolidated financial statements, the Company changed its method of accounting for asset retirement obligations and share-based payment awards, respectively, in 2006.

Our report dated December 12, 2006, on management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and theeffectiveness of internal control over financial reporting as of September 29, 2006 contains an explanatory paragraph that states the Company acquired Clarity Visual Systems, Inc. (Clarity) during 2006, and management excluded from itsassessment of the effectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting associated with total assets of $33,681,000 and total revenues of $4,656,000 included in the consolidated financial statements of the Company andsubsidiaries as of and for the year ended September 29, 2006. Our audit of internal control over financial reporting of the Company also excluded an evaluation of the internal control over financial reporting of Clarity. 

 

Portland, Oregon 

December 12, 2006
#### The STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Albert PUIG, Appellee.

No. 76-2184.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.

May 3, 1977.

Rehearing Denied June 17, 1977.

Richard E. Gerstein, State’s Atty. and George Volsky, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

No appearance by counsel for appellee.

Before HENDRY, C. J., and PEARSON and HAVERFIELD, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. See *Earman v. State,*265 So.2d 695 (Fla.1972); *Bailey v. State,*319 So.2d 22 (Fla.1975); *Urquhart v. State,*211 So.2d 79 (Fla.2d DCA 1968).
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: December 17, 2015 520213 

________________________________

In the Matter of CAMILLO 

DOUGLAS, 

Appellant, 

v MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

COREY BEDARD, as Acting 

Director of Special Housing 

and Inmate Disciplinary 

Programs,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: October 27, 2015

Before: Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ.

__________

Camillo Douglas, Malone, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent.

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (McGrath, J.),

entered November 12, 2014 in Albany County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of the Commissioner of

Corrections and Community Supervision finding petitioner guilty

of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.

Following a confidential investigation, petitioner was

charged in a misbehavior report with soliciting others to smuggle

contraband, violating package room procedures and violating

telephone program procedures. Petitioner was found guilty of all

charges at the conclusion of a tier III disciplinary hearing and

that determination was administratively affirmed, with a
-2- 520213 

modification to the penalty imposed. Petitioner then commenced

this CPLR article 78 proceeding, asserting, among other things,

that he was denied the right to attend the disciplinary hearing. 

Supreme Court dismissed the petition and this appeal ensued. 

We affirm. The record reflects that the Hearing Officer,

after being informed of petitioner's refusal to attend the

hearing or provide a reason why, met with petitioner and

petitioner refused to attend the hearing, despite being informed

that the hearing would proceed in his absence. The Hearing

Officer and the correction officer who accompanied him to

petitioner's cell executed a form documenting petitioner's

refusal, which petitioner refused to sign. In view of the

foregoing, petitioner's contention that he was improperly denied

the right to attend the hearing is without merit (see Matter of

Toliver v New York State Commr. of Corr. & Community Supervision,

114 AD3d 987, 988 [2014]; Matter of Rouse v Fischer, 94 AD3d

1310, 1310 [2012]). Furthermore, petitioner's failure to attend

the hearing renders any procedural challenges to the hearing

unpreserved (see Matter of Abreu v Bezio, 84 AD3d 1596, 1596-1597

[2011], appeals dismissed 17 NY3d 781, 915 [2011]; Matter of

Tafari v Selsky, 36 AD3d 982, 983 [2007], lv denied 8 NY3d 809

[2007]). 

Peters, P.J., Garry, Egan Jr. and Lynch, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed, without costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONATAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THERMEDICS
INC.'S ANNUAL REPORT ON FORM 10-K FOR THE YEAR ENDED JANUARY 3, 1998 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-03-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-03-1998
<CASH>                                         187,012
<SECURITIES>                                    58,317
<RECEIVABLES>                                   65,695
<ALLOWANCES>                                     4,207
<INVENTORY>                                     59,574
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               379,160
<PP&E>                                          55,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                  33,986
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 536,552
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           69,797
<BONDS>                                        142,771
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,685
<OTHER-SE>                                     223,661
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   536,552
<SALES>                                        307,666
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               307,666
<CGS>                                          155,680
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  155,680
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                24,270
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   815
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               3,398
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 68,897
<INCOME-TAX>                                    19,675
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             41,492
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    41,492
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.13
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.07
        


</TABLE>
#### Peter Guile, Ltd. *v.*United States

No. 6948.

Entry No. 743948.

Invoice dated London, England, February 8, 1946.

Certified February 8, 1946.

Entered at New York, N. Y., March 8, 1946.

(Decided March 3, 1947)

*Brooks & Brooks*for the plaintiff.

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

La whence, Judge:

It has been agreed between the parties hereto that the issues herein relating to the above-mentioned merchandise are the same in all material respects as those decided in *United States*v. *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.,*33 C. C. P. A. (Customs) 183, C. A. D. 334, and that the record therein may be incorporated herein.

Upon the agreed facts I find the export value, as defined in section 402 (d), Tariff Act of 1930, to be the proper basis for determining the values of said merchandise, and that such values are the appraised values, less additions made by importer on entry because of advances by the appraiser in similar cases.

Judgment will be entered accordingly.
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange Act of 1934; and
 (2)
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
 Date:  February 29, 2008
    /s/ Doug RockDoug RockChairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer,
President and Chief Operating OfficerDate:  February 29, 2008
    /s/ Margaret K. DormanMargaret K. DormanSenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Treasurer   95
No. 00-726.

#### Gupta *v.*Florida Board of Regents et al.

C. A. 11th Cir. Certiorari denied.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JAN-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             FEB-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1997
<CASH>                                           13000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   125900
<ALLOWANCES>                                      1290
<INVENTORY>                                      61400
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                212200
<PP&E>                                          116000
<DEPRECIATION>                                  113100
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  230600
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           507700
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       7248900
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    230600
<SALES>                                        1032900
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               1032900
<CGS>                                           600700
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  1028700
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (20400)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (16200)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (16200)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (16200)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT
      23.1**





**Consent
      of Independent Registered Public Accounting Firm**







We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-4 (Registration No. 333-103673) and on Form S-3 (Registration No. 333-116754)
      of East Penn Financial Corporation of our report dated March 5, 2007, relating
      to the consolidated financial statements, which appear in the Annual Report
      to
      Shareholders, which is incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form
      10-K.







/s/
                BEARD MILLER COMPANY LLP








Beard
      Miller Company LLP


Allentown,
      Pennsylvania


March
      27,
      2007




Page
      28
exv4w1



 




Exhibit 4.1















 








SIGNATURE(S) GUARANTEED

By:

 



THE SIGNATURE(S) MUST BE GUARANTEED BY AN ELIGIBLE GUARANTOR INSTITUTION (BANKS,
STOCKBROKERS, SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSOCIATIONS AND CREDIT UNIONS WITH MEMBERSHIP IN AN
APPROVED SIGNATURE GUARANTEE MEDALLION PROGRAM) PURSUANT TO S.E.C. RULE 17Ad-15.


THE SECURITIES EVIDENCED BY THIS CERTIFICATE SHALL BE REDEEMABLE AS PROVIDED IN THE CERTIFICATE OF
DESIGNATION AND THE CORPORATION’S CERTIFICATE OF INCORPORATION AND SHALL BE CONVERTIBLE INTO THE
CORPORATION’S COMMON STOCK IN THE MANNER AND ACCORDING TO THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE CERTIFICATE OF
DESIGNATION.



THE CORPORATION IS AUTHORIZED TO ISSUE MORE THAN ONE CLASS OR SERIES OF CAPITAL STOCK. THE
CORPORATION SHALL FURNISH TO ANY HOLDER UPON REQUEST AND WITHOUT CHARGE THE POWERS, DESIGNATIONS,
PREFERENCES AND RELATIVE, PARTICIPATING, OPTIONAL OR OTHER SPECIAL RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OF STOCK OR
SERIES THEREOF AND THE QUALIFICATIONS, LIMITATIONS OR RESTRICTIONS OF SUCH PREFERENCES AND/OR
RIGHTS OF EACH CLASS OR SERIES AUTHORIZED TO BE ISSUED BY THE CORPORATION SO FAR AS THEY HAVE BEEN
FIXED AND DETERMINED AND OF THE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO FIX AND DETERMINE THE
DESIGNATIONS, VOTING RIGHTS, PREFERENCES, LIMITATIONS AND SPECIAL RIGHTS OF THE CLASSES AND SERIES
OF SECURITIES OF THE CORPORATION.



THE SECURITIES REPRESENTED BY THIS CERTIFICATE HAVE NOT BEEN REGISTERED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT
OF 1933, AS AMENDED (THE “SECURITIES ACT”). THE SECURITIES HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED FOR INVESTMENT
PURPOSES ONLY AND MAY NOT BE OFFERED, SOLD, PLEDGED OR OTHERWISE TRANSFERRED EXCEPT PURSUANT TO
(A) AN EFFECTIVE REGISTRATION STATEMENT FOR THE SECURITIES UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT AND ANY
APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAW, (B) AN OPINION OF COUNSEL, IN FORM, SUBSTANCE AND SCOPE
REASONABLY ACCEPTABLE TO THE COMPANY, THAT REGISTRATION IS NOT REQUIRED UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT
OR ANY APPLICABLE STATE SECURITIES LAW OR (C) RULE 144 UNDER THE SECURITIES ACT.
#### The State, ex rel. Coss et al., *v.*Forney et al., as State Tax Commissioners.

*Supreme court*— Dismissals—Moot *questions.*

(No. 17693

Decided December 30, 1922.)

In Mandamus.

*Mr. P. M. Smith,*for relator.

*Mr. John, G. Price,*attorney general, and *Mr. Bay Martin,*for defendants.

The court finds that the questions involved are moot ones, and it is therefore ordered that the petition be, and it is hereby, dismissed on authority of *Miner*v. *Witt,*82 Ohio St., 237.

*Petition dismissed.*

Marshall, C. J., Hough, Wanamaker, Bobinson, Jones, Matthias and Clark, JJ., concur.
Form of Supply Agreement



 Exhibit 10.II.J 
 

 
 SUPPLY AGREEMENT (Renewal) 
 Argentina 
  

			
	DATE:	  	September 28, 2007
		
	SELLER:	  	 MOSAIC CROP NUTRITION, LLC
 8813 HWY 41
SOUTH
 RIVERVIEW, FL 33569

		
	BUYER:	  	 CARGILL S.A.CI.
 Elevatores
Central
 Leandro No Alem 928
 Piso 11 (CP 1001
Buenos Aires)
 Argentina

		
	PRODUCT:	  	DAP AND MAP/S-15
		
	SPECIFICATIONS:	  	SPECIFICATIONS ATTACHED PURSUANT TO GEOGRAPHIC LOCATIONS
		
	MARKET:	  	ARGENTINA
		
	PERIOD:	  	JUNE 1 , 2007 – MAY 31, 2008
		
	PRICING:	  	MARKET AT TIME OF SALE
		
	QUANTITY:	  	EST. 69,000 METRIC TONS DURING THE TERM
		
	DELIVERY:	  	DETERMINED AT TIME OF SALE
		
	PAYMENT:	  	WIRE TRANSFER UPON RECEIPT OF DOCUMENTS
		
	TERMS:	  	MOSAIC TERMS AND CONDITIONS TO APPLY. (SEE ATTACHED)

  

									
	CARGILL S.A.C.I.	 		 	MOSAIC CROP NUTRITION, LLC
					
	By:	 	  
	 		 	By:	 	  

	Name:	 	  
	 		 	Name:	 	  

	Its:	 	  
	 		 	Its:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 152 (Thursday, August 7, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42538]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20806]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. OR95-7-000]


Longhorn Partners Pipeline; Notice of Petition for Further Review 
of Asset Valuation

August 1, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 31, 1997, Longhorn Partners Pipeline, L.P. 
(Longhorn), pursuant to Rule 207 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure, 18 CFR 387.207, and the Commission's Order on Petition 
for Declaratory Order issued December 20, 1995, 73 FERC para. 61,355 
(1995), filed a petition for further review of the asset valuation that 
was the subject of the 1995 order.
    The 1995 order allowed Longhorn to include in its cost of service 
the full purchase price of a crude oil pipeline to be acquired from 
Exxon Pipeline Company (Exxon). The 1995 order provided, however, that 
``if Exxon or any of its affiliates should become an equity owner of 
the [Longhorn] system, the proper valuation of the Baytown to Crane 
segment, as to Exxon's ownership, shall be subject to further review.'' 
73 FERC para. 61,355 at 62,113.
    Longhorn indicates that Exxon will acquire an equity interest in 
the Longhorn partnership. Accordingly, Longhorn requests a further 
valuation review and a determination that it may use in its cost of 
service the purchase price of the pipeline segment it is acquiring from 
Exxon, notwithstanding Exxon's anticipated equity participation in the 
Longhorn Partnership.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing must file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 18 CFR 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed on or 
before August 15, 1997. 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.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20806 Filed 8-6-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M