alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 144 (Monday, July 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40372]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19725]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management
[WY-921-41-5700; WYW107756]


Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and Gas Lease

July 18, 1997.
    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188 (d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3 (a) and (b) (1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas 
lease WYW107756 for lands in Campbell County, Wyoming, was timely filed 
and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date 
of termination. The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for 
rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, 
per year and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively.
    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $125 
to reimburse the Department for the cost of this Federal Register 
notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of 
the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands 
Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management 
is proposing to reinstate lease WYW107756 effective March 1, 1997, 
subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the 
increased rental and royalty rates cited above.
Pamela J. Lewis,
Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.
[FR Doc. 97-19725 Filed 7-25-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Milton T. FRAZIER and Alberta Frazier.

No. 60335.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Sept. 27, 1977.

In re: Milton T. Frazier applying for writs of certiorari, mandamus and prohibition.

Writs denied.
#### In the Matter of the ESTATE of Zollie A. CLANTON, Deceased. Perry D. JONES and Edna B. Jones v. Malcolm KENDRICK, et al.

No. 49243.

Supreme Court of Mississippi.

March 9, 1977.

Burgin, Gholson, Hicks & Nichols, Hunter M. Gholson, John W. Crowell, Columbus, for appellant.

Brown & Perkins, Ernest L. Brown, Macon, for appellee.

Appeal from Chancery Court, Lowndes County; W. W. Brand, Jr., Chancellor.

Before PATTERSON, P. J., and ROBERTSON and BROOM, JJ.

AFFIRMED.
Exhibit
      10.9

     

    HAMBRECHT
      ASIA ACQUISITION CORP.

    


    ________,
      2007

    


    Hambrecht
      Eu Capital Management LLC

    [address]

    


    Dear
      [         ]:

     

    This
      letter will confirm our agreement that commencing on the effective date
      (“Effective Date”) of the registration statement of the initial public offering
      (“IPO”) of the securities of Hambrecht
      Asia Acquisition Corp. (“Company”) and continuing until the consummation by the
      Company of a “Business Combination” (as described in the prospectus),
Hambrecht
      Eu Capital Management LLC (“You”) shall make available to the Company certain
      technology and administrative and secretarial services, as well as the use
      of
      certain limited office space, including a conference room, in Hong Kong and
      Shanghai as may be required by the Company from time to time. In exchange
      therefor, the Company shall pay to You the sum of $7,500 per month (the “Fee”)
      on the Effective Date and continuing monthly thereafter.

    


    This
      Agreement may be signed in counterpart.

     

    
      	
               

            	
               

            	
               

            
	
               

            	
              Very
                truly yours,

            
	
               

            	
               

            
	
               

            	
              Hambrecht
                Asia Acquisition Corporation

            
	
               

               

            	
               

               

            	
               

               

            
	 	
              By:

            	 
	 	 	
              Name:
                John Wang

              Title:
                Chief Executive Officer, President and Director

            
	
               

            	
               

            


    

     

     

    
      	
              Agreed
                to and Accepted by:

            	
               

            
	
              Hambrecht
                Eu Capital Management LLC 

            	 
	
               

            	
               

            
	 	 
	
              Name:
                

              Title:
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 this Quarterly Report of Goldspring, Inc. (the "Company") on
Form 10-QSB for the quarter ending March 31, 2004, as filed with the Securities
and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert Faber,
Principal Financial Officer of the Company, certifies to the best of his
knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 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 result of operations of the Company.


May 17, 2004                                    /s/ Robert Faber
                                                -------------------------------
                                                    Robert Faber
                                                    Principal Financial Officer
#### STATE of Florida, Appellant, v. Georgia S. WATERS, Appellee.

No. 97-00993.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Aug. 7, 1998.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 16, 1998.

*226Robert A. Butterworth, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Michele Taylor, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellant.

Tony C. Dodds of Weeks & Dodds, P.A., Lakeland, for Appellee.

THREADGILL, Judge.

The State challenges an order entered in favor of the appellee, Georgia S. Waters, on her motion for postconvietion relief, which was based on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel. The trial court found that Waters’ trial counsel was ineffective because he failed to file a pretrial motion in limine to either completely exclude, or to at least limit, the admission of certain Williams1 rule evidence. The State contends the trial court erred in granting Waters relief in this instance because, not only did trial counsel object to the *Williams*rule evidence in an effort to prevent it from being admitted at trial, but the issue of the admissibility of the *Williams*rule evidence was considered and affirmed on Waters’ direct appeal. We agree and reverse.

In 1994, Waters was convicted of one count of battery on an elderly person, three counts of forgery, three counts of uttering a forged instrument, one count of grand theft, and one count of petit theft. Waters appealed her convictions, contending the trial court erred in overruling her objections to the same *Williams*rule evidence at issue herein and in failing to grant her motion for a judgment of acquittal on all counts. In 1996, this court per curiam affirmed her judgments and sentences in all respects, including the *Williams*rule evidence issue. *See Waters v. State,*670 So.2d 953 (Fla. 2d DCA 1996). Thereafter, Waters filed the instant motion for posteon-vietion relief pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850, asserting that trial counsel was ineffective for, in essence, failing to do more to preclude the admission of the very damaging *Williams*rule evidence, which demonstrated that Waters had a distinct pattern of preying on elderly women for money.

Because the propriety of the same *Williams*rule evidence was previously considered on Waters’ direct appeal and the issue was decided adversely to her, Waters is procedurally barred from seeking postconviction relief on the basis of the same issue. *See Kelley v. State,*569 So.2d 754 (Fla.1990); *Hitchcock v. State,*432 So.2d 42 (Fla.1983). We therefore reverse the trial court’s order granting Waters’ motion for postconvietion relief.

Reversed.

PARKER, C.J., and PATTERSON, J., concur.

1

. *Williams v. State,*110 So.2d 654 (Fla.1959), *cert. denied,*361 U.S. 847, 80 S.Ct. 102, 4 L.Ed.2d 86 (1959).
#### McBride, Treas., *v.*The White Motor Co.

*Taxation*— Deductible *credits*— Section *5327, General Code*— Fed*eral income or excess profits taxes*— Section *2, Article XII, Constitution*— Supreme *court*— Judges *equally divided*— Af*firmance of judgment.*

(No. 17460

Decided December 12, 1922.)

Error to the Court of Appeals of Cuyahoga county-

*Mr. John G. Price,*attorney general; *Mr. Ray Martin; Mr. Clarence; D. Laylin; Mr. Edward G. Blanton,*prosecuting attorney, and *Mr. Geo. G. Ham-sen,*assistant prosecuting attorney, for plaintiff in error.

*Messrs. M. B. H. H. Johnson,*for defendant in error.

It is ordered and adjudged by this court, that the judgment of the said court of appeals be, and the same is hereby, affirmed. Three of the members of *657this court as at present constituted, for personal reasons, declined ¡to participate in the consideration or decision of this case. Two of the remaining members, Matthias and Robinson, JJ., are of the opinion that income taxes payable to the federal government do not constitute a debt in the sense that a taxpayer is entitled to deduct the same from credits under Section 5327, General Code, and that the judgment should therefore be reversed. Marshall, C. J., and Clark, J., are of the opinion that Section 5327, General Code, is unconstitutional and that no deduction of debts from credits is permissible under Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution of the state of Ohio. It requiring six judges to declare a law unconstitutional under the circumstances of the present controversy and the unconstitutionality of the statute being by reason thereof not found in this cause, they are of the opinion that under a proper construction of Section 5327, General Code, such taxes do constitute a deductible debt and that the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed upon the authority of *Exchange Bank of Columbus*v. *Hines,*3 Ohio St., 1. There being an insufficient number of judges concurring to reverse the judgment of the court of appeals same is hereby affirmed.

*Judgment affirmed.*

Marshall, C. J., and Clark, J., concur.

Matthias, J., dissents.

Hough, ‘Wanamaker and Jones, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2399 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2399

 To suspend temporarily the duty on sports footwear for persons other 
  than men or women, valued $12/pair or higher, other than ski-boots, 
            cross-country ski footwear and snowboard boots.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

  Mrs. Murray introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 
                  referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To suspend temporarily the duty on sports footwear for persons other 
  than men or women, valued $12/pair or higher, other than ski-boots, 
            cross-country ski footwear and snowboard boots.

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

SECTION 1. SPORTS FOOTWEAR FOR PERSONS OTHER THAN MEN OR WOMEN, VALUED 
              $12/PAIR OR HIGHER, OTHER THAN SKI-BOOTS, CROSS-COUNTRY 
              SKI FOOTWEAR AND SNOWBOARD BOOTS.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00      Sports footwear     Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                        for persons other                                                  31/2015.......
                        than men or
                        women, valued $12/
                        pair or higher,
                        other than ski-
                        boots, cross-
                        country ski
                        footwear and
                        snowboard boots
                        (provided for in
                        subheading
                        6404.11.90)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
with respect to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for 
consumption, on or after the 15th day after the date of the enactment 
of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
Tuesday September 4, 2007

Company Press Release

Source: Salisbury Bancorp, Inc.

Salisbury Contact: John F. Perotti-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                   (860) 435-9801 x 1001

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. Announces Third Quarter Dividend

Lakeville, Connecticut,  September 4, 2007/PRNewswire...  The Board of Directors
of Salisbury Bancorp,  Inc.  (AMEX:SAL),  the holding company for Salisbury Bank
and Trust Company  declared a $.27 per common share  quarterly  cash dividend at
their August 31, 2007 meeting.  Dividends  year-to-date  for 2007 total $.81 per
common  share.  This  represents  an  increase of $.03 or 4.0% over the $.78 per
share cash  dividends  paid during the same period in 2006.  The quarterly  cash
dividend  will be paid on  October  31,  2007 to  shareholders  of  record as of
September 28, 2007.

Salisbury  Bancorp's sole  subsidiary,  Salisbury  Bank and Trust Company,  is a
community  bank. The Company has assets in excess of $440 million and capital in
excess  of $40  million,  which  has  served  the  communities  of  northwestern
Connecticut  and  proximate  communities  in  New  York  and  Massachusetts  for
approximately  150 years.  Salisbury Bank and Trust Company is  headquartered in
Lakeville,  Connecticut and operates full service branches in Canaan,  Salisbury
and Sharon as well as Lakeville,  Connecticut  and South Egremont and Sheffield,
Massachusetts.  In addition,  the Bank opened its initial full service branch in
New York State on August 1, 2007.  The new branch is located at 5 Dover  Village
Plaza in Dover Plains,  New York. The Bank offers a full  complement of consumer
and business  banking products and services as well as trust and wealth advisory
services.

Statements  contained in this news release contain  forward  looking  statements
within the  meaning of the  Private  Securities  Litigation  Reform Act of 1995.
These statements are based on the beliefs and expectations of management as well
as the assumptions  made using  information  currently  available to management.
Since these statements reflect the views of management concerning future events,
these statements involve risks,  uncertainties and assumptions,  including among
others:  changes in market  interest  rates and  general and  regional  economic
conditions; changes in government regulations; changes in accounting principles;
and the quality or composition  of the loan and investment  portfolios and other
factors that may be described in the  Company's  quarterly  reports of Form 10-Q
and its annual report on Form 10-K,  each filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission,  which are  available at the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission's
internet website (www.sec.gov) and to which reference is hereby made. Therefore,
actual future  results may differ  significantly  from results  discussed in the
forward looking statements.

                                      -3-
Before the First Division,

October 23, 1943

No. 48914.

#### Protests 55032-K, etc., of Arlan Trading Corp. et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

Exhibit 1 showed the article to consist of small, slightly curved articles, manufactured from mother-of-pearl, about 1% inches long and J4 inch wide, cut or engraved on the surface to simulate an oak leaf. About *%*inch from each end a hole has been bored completely through the article for the purpose of attaching the ends of a wire used to spell a name and to attach a pin or other fastening device. It was found that the entire article, after importation, is so devised that it can be sold as a very inexpensive brooch. At the trial it was conceded by Government counsel that the article is made from mother-of-pearl, that mother-of-pearl comes from a shell form, and that it has been cut and ornamented. The vice president of the plaintiff corporation established that the imported pearl articles were used solely for the purpose of being made into cheap brooches which he designated as jewelry, and that he had made samples of other completed articles, using the imported merchandise for hatpins, belt buckles, shoe buckles, and zipper pulls, but that he had never sold such articles commercially. Two witnesses testified on behalf of the Government. From the entire record the court was of the opinion that these articles are only suitable for use as brooches and that the brooches so made are commonly known as jewelry. *United States*v. *Cohn*(19 C. C. P. A. 137, T. D. 45259) was cited, but that case referred to paragraph 1428, Tariff Act of 1922, which uses the same language, namely, “jewelry, commonly or commercially so known, finished or unfinished,” but the Tariff Act of 1930, however, added the provision “including parts thereof” to the jewelry paragraph. On the record presented it was found that the articles are p'opeTy dutiable as parts of jewelry as assessed. The protests were therefore overruled.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [EPA-HQ-OAR-2007-0069; FRL-8314-7] 

# AGENCY:

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

# ACTION:

Notice; correction.

# SUMMARY:

                        The Environmental Protection Agency published a notice in the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 12, 2007, concerning a request for comments on an Information Collection Request for the SunWise program, EPA ICR No. 1904.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0439. The notice contained an incorrect EPA ICR Number.                     

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kristinn Vazquez, (202) 343-9246. 

## Correction 

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 12, 2007, in FR Doc. E7-2308, on page 6564, at the top of the second column, correct the title to read: Agency Information Collection Activities: Proposed Collection; Comment Request; The SunWise Program; EPA ICR No. 1904.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0439.                     

                        In the                         **Federal Register**                         of February 12, 2007, in FR Doc. E7-2308, on page 6565, at the top of the second column, correct the ICR numbers to read: EPA ICR No. 1904.03, OMB Control No. 2060-0439.                     

Dated: May 9, 2007. 

Elizabeth Craig, 

Acting Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.

 [FR Doc. E7-9292 Filed 5-14-07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1136 

To facilitate the provision by members of the Armed Forces of testimony 

on the military value of military installations in connection with the 

2005 round of defense base closure and realignment. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 26, 2005 

Mr. THUNE (for himself, Mr. JOHNSON, Ms. COLLINS, Ms. SNOWE, Mr. 

SUNUNU, Mr. CORZINE, Mr. LIEBERMAN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mr. 

DOMENICI, Mr. DODD, and Mr. BINGAMAN) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services 

A BILL 

To facilitate the provision by members of the Armed Forces 

of testimony on the military value of military installations in connection with the 2005 round of defense base 

closure and realignment. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 
2 

•S 1136 IS

1 SECTION 1. TESTIMONY BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED 

2 FORCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE 2005 

3 ROUND OF DEFENSE BASE CLOSURE AND RE4 ALIGNMENT. 

5 (a) TESTIMONY AUTHORIZED.—The Secretary of De6 fense shall permit any member of the Armed Forces to 

7 provide to the Defense Base Closure and Realignment 

8 Commission testimony on the military value of a military 

9 installation inside the United States for purposes of the 

10 consideration by the Commission of the Secretary’s rec11 ommendations for the 2005 round of defense base closure 

12 and realignment under section 2914(d) of the Defense 

13 Base Closure and Realignment Act of 1990 (part A of title 

14 XXIX of Public Law 101–510; 10 U.S.C. 2687 note). 

15 (b) PROTECTION AGAINST RETALIATION.—No mem16 ber of the Armed Forces may be discharged, demoted, sus17 pended, threatened, harassed, or in any other manner dis18 criminated against because such member provided, caused 

19 to be provided, or is about to provide testimony under sub20 section (a). 

Æ
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 145 (Tuesday, July 29, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 40519]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-19908]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket Nos. RP97-137-000, RP97-182-000, RP97-224-000, RP97-138-000, 
RP97-310-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company, South Georgia Natural Gas Company, 
Sea Robin Pipeline Company, Shell Gas Pipeline Company, Garden Banks 
Gas Pipeline Company, LLC; Notice of Meeting

July 23, 1997.
    Take notice that a meeting with Staff will be convened in the 
above-docketed proceedings on Thursday, July 31, 1997, at 1:00 p.m., in 
a room to be designated at the offices of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, D.C., 20426. The purpose 
of the meeting is to discuss the status of the new SoNet project and 
any impacts of a later implementation date. Any interested parties may 
attend.
    For additional information, please contact Keith Pierce, 202-208-
0525, or Leonard Burton, 202-208-1074, at the Commission.
Kevin P. Madden,
Director, Office of Pipeline Regulation.
[FR Doc. 97-19908 Filed 7-28-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M