alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
No. 00-773.

#### Collie *v.*Kendall, Judge, United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, et al.

C. A. 5th Cir. Certiorari denied.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42252]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20669]



[[Page 42252]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-5870-5]


Proposed CERCLA Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Rock 
Island Plating Works Site

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (``USEPA'').

ACTION: Proposal of CERCLA Prospective Purchaser Agreement for the Rock 
Island Plating Works Site.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (``CERCLA''), 42 U.S.C. 9601 et 
seq., as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 
1986 (``SARA''), Pub. L. 99-499, notice is hereby given that a proposed 
prospective purchaser agreement (``PPA'') for the Rock Island Plating 
Works Site (``the Site'') located in Rock Island, Illinois, has been 
executed by the City of Rock Island. The proposed PPA has been 
submitted to the Attorney General for approval. The proposed PPA would 
resolve certain potential claims of the United States under Sections 
106 and 107 of CERCLA, 42 U.S.C. 9606 and 9607, against the City of 
Rock Island. The proposed PPA would require the City of Rock Island to 
pay the United States $3,990 to be applied toward outstanding response 
costs incurred by the United States in conducting federally funded 
removal activities at the Site. The Site is not on the NPL. EPA will 
complete the removal action in August 1997. EPA does not anticipate 
taking further remedial action at the Site after the completion of the 
removal action.

DATES: Comments on the proposed PPA must be received by USEPA on or 
before September 5, 1997.

ADDRESSES: A copy of the proposed PPA is available for review at USEPA, 
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please 
contact Constandina Kallos at (312) 353-1027, prior to visiting the 
Region 5 office.
    Comments on the proposed PPA should be addressed to Constandina A. 
Kallos, Office of Regional Counsel, USEPA, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard (Mail Code C-29A), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Constandina A. Kallos at (312) 353-
1027, of the U.S. EPA Region 5 Office of Regional Counsel.
    A 30-day period, commencing on the date of publication of this 
notice, is open for comments on the proposed PPA. Comments should be 
sent to the addressee identified in this notice.
William E. Muno,
Director, Superfund Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5.
[FR Doc. 97-20669 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Before the First Division,

April 10, 1942

No. 47075.

#### Protests 823995-G, etc., of C. A. Andres et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Walker, J.

Following the authorities cited in Abstract 15400 the court dismissed the protests.
Order entered January 24, 2020

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-01057-CR

No. 05-19-01059-CR

TAVARIO JERMAINE SMITH, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 1

Collin County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. 001-87850-2018, 001-87851-2018

ORDER

Before the Court are appellant’s January 21, 2020 second motions to extend time to file 

appellant’s brief(s). We GRANT the motions and ORDER appellant’s brief(s) filed on or before 

February 21, 2020. We caution appellant that further requests for extension of time are

disfavored. 

/s/ BILL PEDERSEN, III 

JUSTICE
WAIVER LETTER

To: Wuxi Seamless Oil Pipes Company Limited,

In accordance with the Civil Mediation Agreement [(2006) Xi Min Er Chu Zi Di No.
0040] issued by Jiangsu Wuxi Intermediate People's Court, China Huayuan Group
Jiangsu Company Limied (hereinafter referred to as "Huayuan Jiangsu") shall
repay to the Wuxi Branch of China Construction Bank Corporation (hereinafter
referred to as "CCB Wuxi Branch") the loan principal of RMB 6 million, the
relevant interest and litigation expenses, and your company and our company
shall bear joint responsibility for such payment. Article 3 of such civil
mediation agreement stipulates that in case we undertakes the guaranty
responsibility to CCB Wuxi Branch, we shall obtain the right of recourse, that
is, to directly make the claim against Huayuan Jiangsu for repayment; if Huayuan
Jiangsu fails to settle it, we may apply to the court for compulsory execution.
Therefore, on June 21 and 27, 2006, we paid to CCB Wuxi Branch the loan
principal of RMB 6 million, the interest of RMB 258,043.11 and the litigation
expenses of RMB 48,695, totaling RMB 6,306,738.11. On June 27, 2006, we made the
claim against Huayuan Jiangsu for repayment of the above mentioned loan
principal, interest and litigation expenses paid by us, but Huayuan Jiangsu
failed to repay us. On July 5, 2006, we applied to Wuxi Intermediate Peoples
Court for compulsory execution against Huayuan Jiangsu.

In accordance with the above civil mediation agreement, your company and we bear
the joint responsibility, but considering the above cases, we hereby agree and
confirm that we have waived the rights to request your company to bear relevant
responsibilities and will not request your company to repay us the
above-mentioned loan principal, interests and litigation expenses. Even if we
fail to reclaim such payments from Huayuan Jiangsu, we nevertheless agree waive
the right of recourse against your company.


                                        Wuxi Longhua Steel Pipes Company Limited

                                                                          (Seal)

                                                          Date: January 25, 2007
Exhibit 32.1   BINGHAM CANYON CORPORATION  CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 18 U.S.C. Section 1350  The undersigned executive officer of Bingham Canyon Corporation certifies pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that:  a. the quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Bingham Canyon Corporation for the quarter ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and  b. the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Bingham Canyon Corporation.   Date:  November 3, 2010/s/ Brett D. Mayer
Brett D. Mayer
Principal Executive Officer
Principal Financial Officer
National Flood Insurance Program

Your homeowners
insurance doesn’t
cover floods

SARE

SA

FEMA

a

Federal flood insurance does.

Floods can happen anytime, anywhere.

They cause anguish
physical, emotional, and fi

Especially when victims realize the damage
ered by their homeowners insurance policy.

Federal disaster assistant
It’s not the answer either.

only aid
r victims may qualify for is a loan, and
that must be id—with interest!

Only Federal flood insurance reimburses
you for flood damage to your property!

With one annual premium, you can protect your
most important investment—your home and your
finances.

Call your insurance agent or company today.
Ask about the National Flood Insurance Program.
There’s no better way to save for a rainy day.

For more information about the
NFIP and flood insurance, call
1-800-427-4661,
or contact your
insurance company or agent.

For an agent referral, call
1-888-435-6637
TDD 1-800-427-5593

http://www.fema.gov/business/nfip
http://www.floodsmart.gov

F-061 (4/06)
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)
 
 In
        connection with the quarterly report Royal Spring Water Inc. (the “Company”), on
        Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended May 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
        and
        Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), each of the undersigned
        of the Company, certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted
        pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best
        of
        their 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.
  A
        signed
        original of this written certification has been provided to the Company and
        will
        be retained by the Company and will be furnished to the Securities and Exchange
        Commission or its staff upon request.
 
 /s/
                  Alex HazanName:
                  Alex HazanTitle:
                  Chief Executive OfficerAugust
                  22, 2006/s/
                  Harel GoldsteinName:
                  Harel GoldsteinTitle:
                  Chief Financial OfficerAugust
                  22, 2006
  This
        Certification of Chief Executive Officer pursuant to Section 906 of the
        Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002. This exhibit is not “filed” for purposes of Section
        18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 but is instead furnished as provided
        by applicable rules of the Securities Exchange Commission.
Consumer Product Safety Alert

FROM THE U.S. CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20207

CPSC Gets New, S a fer Baby Wa l k e rs 

on the Market

009808

The U. S. Consumer Product Safety Commission

(CPSC) is informing consumers of the availability

of a new generation of safer baby walkers. These

new walkers have features that will reduce the

stair-fall injuries associated with traditional baby

walkers.

More children are injured with baby walkers than

with any other nursery product. CPSC estimates

that, in 1997, walkers were involved in 14,300

hospital emergency-room-treated injuries to children younger than 15 months. Walkers also

have been involved in 34 deaths since 1973.

Most children sustained injuries when their walker fell down stairs.

To make walkers safer, CPSC worked with the

industry to develop a new standard. Each walker

meeting the new standard and certified by the

Juvenile Products Manufacturers Association

(JPMA) must meet one of two requirements: 1) it

must be too wide to fit through a standard doorway, or 2) it must have features, such as a gripping mechanism, to stop the walker at the edge

of a step.

If consumers choose to use baby walkers, CPSC

strongly recommends that they replace their old

walkers with a new-generation baby walker,

which meets the requirements of the standard.

Consumers should look for the “Meets New

Safety Standard” label.

If consumers want a wheeled walker, they should

buy one that has new safety features to help prevent falls down stairs. Another alternative is the

stationary activity center, which does not have

wheels. Whichever new product they choose,

consumers should follow these safety tips when

using a baby walker or an activity center.

• Close the door or gate at the top of the stairs.

• Keep children within view.

• Keep children away from hot surfaces and containers.

• Beware of dangling appliance cords.

• Keep children away from toilets, swimming

pools and other sources of water.

CPSC said that without the new standard, baby

walker-related injuries would increase to as many

as 32,000 injuries in 2002. With CPSC’s intervention in getting the new standard in place, the

number of baby walker-related injuries is estimated to decrease to less than 10,000 per year by

2002.

Stationary activity center 

does not have wheels.

Features, such as a gripping 

mechanism, stop walker at edge of step.

Too wide to fit through doorway.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 151 (Wednesday, August 6, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 42246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-20701]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. CP97-668-000]


Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Company; Notice of Request 
Under Blanket Authorization

July 31, 1997.
    Take notice that on July 28, 1997, Williston Basin Interstate 
Pipeline Company (Williston), 200 North Third Street, Suite 300, 
Bismark, North Dakota 58501, filed in Docket No. CP97-668-000 a request 
pursuant to Sections 157.205, 157.211, and 157.216(b) of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.211, and 157.216) for approval to abandon certain facilities and to 
construct and operate new facilities, under Williston's blanket 
certificate issued in Docket No. CP82-487-000 et al., pursuant to 
Section 7(c) of the Natural Gas Act (NGA), all as more fully set forth 
in the request which is on file with the Commission and open to public 
inspection.
    Williston proposes to abandon by removal a two-inch rotary meter 
and associated piping and install and operate a three-inch meter and 
associated piping at Williston's Teddy Roosevelt station located in 
Billings County, North Dakota. Williston asserts that Bear Paw Energy, 
Inc. (Bear Paw), has requested such action to effectuate an increase in 
delivery capacity at this point from 748 Mcf per day to 1,872 Mcf per 
day. Williston states that the total cost of the upgrade proposed 
herein is approximately $6,300, which is totally reimbursable by Bear 
Paw.
    Any person or the Commission's Staff may, within 45 days of the 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214), a motion to intervene and pursuant to Section 157.205 of the 
regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205), a protest to 
the request. If no protest is filed within the time allowed therefor, 
the proposed activities shall be deemed to be authorized effective the 
day after the time allowed for filing a protest. If a protest is filed 
and not withdrawn 30 days after the time allowed for filing a protest, 
the instant request shall be treated as an application for 
authorization pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-20701 Filed 8-5-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
No. 42175.

#### Protest 784796-G of Cudahy Packing Co. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Kraft*v. *United States*(T. D. 47955) the protest was sustained.
<PAGE>
                                                                      EXHIBIT 32

                CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C SECTION 1350,
                                  AS ENACTED BY
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with Third Wave Technologies, Inc. (the "Company) Form 10-Q for
the period ended June 30, 2005 as filed with the Securities and Exchange
Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), John Puisis, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and James Herrmann, Principal Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, 18
U.S.C Section 1350, that on the date of this certification:

        (1) The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q (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 this Report fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the
Company.


                                                /s/ John Puisis
                                                --------------------------------
                                                John Puisis
                                                Chief Executive Officer
                                                August 9, 2005

                                                /s/ James Herrmann
                                                --------------------------------
                                                James Herrmann
                                                Principal Financial Officer
                                                August 9, 2005



                                       18
EXHIBIT 21.1

                     SUBSIDIARIES OF CENTRAL JERSEY BANCORP

Name of Subsidiary                             State of Incorporation
------------------                             ----------------------

Central Jersey Bank, National Association            New Jersey

MCBK Capital Trust I                                 Delaware

CJB Investment Company(1)                            New Jersey

----------
(1) A wholly-owned subsidiary of Central Jersey Bank, National Association.
Comment Info: =================

General Comment:?  U.S. DOT/FAA - Regulatory Evaluation Form
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 00-7481
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, versus BERNARD DEON BEST, Defendant - Appellant.Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Greensboro. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., Chief District Judge. (CR-90-64, CR-90-88) Submitted: February 8, 2001 Decided: February 14, 2001 Before WILKINS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Deon Best, Appellant Pro Se. Benjamin H. White, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Bernard Deon Best appeals the district court’s order denyinghis motion for modification 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. United States v. Best , Nos. CR-90-64; CR-90-88 (M.D.N.C. Sept. 27, 2000). 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
November 10, 1950

No. 7905.

#### *E. H. Corrigan*v. *United States.*

Entered at Laredo, Tex. Reap. Dec. 7879. Motion by plaintiff.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                       5
<LEGEND>
</LEGEND>

<CIK>                           0000721693
<NAME>                          Boulder Brewing Company
<MULTIPLIER>                                                               1
<CURRENCY>                                                        US Dollars

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                                                DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                                   JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                                     DEC-31-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                                            1
<CASH>                                                                     0
<SECURITIES>                                                               0
<RECEIVABLES>                                                              0
<ALLOWANCES>                                                               0
<INVENTORY>                                                                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                                           0
<PP&E>                                                                     0
<DEPRECIATION>                                                             0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                                             0
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                                                 116740
<BONDS>                                                                    0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                                      0
<PREFERRED>                                                                0
<COMMON>                                                              118953
<OTHER-SE>                                                           (235693)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                                               0
<SALES>                                                                    0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                                           0
<CGS>                                                                      0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                                              0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                                           0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                                           0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                                         0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                                            0
<INCOME-TAX>                                                               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                                        0
<DISCONTINUED>                                                             0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                                            0
<CHANGES>                                                                  0
<NET-INCOME>                                                               0
<EPS-BASIC>                                                             0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                                           0.00



</TABLE>
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED FEBRUARY 13, 2013

NO. 03-13-00061-CR

Wendy Harris, Appellant

v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

APPEAL FROM THE 27TH DISTRICT COURT OF BELL COUNTY

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE JONES, JUSTICES GOODWIN AND FIELD

DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION -- OPINION BY JUSTICE GOODWIN

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the record of the court below, and the same being 

considered, because it is the opinion of this Court that the appeal should be dismissed for want of 

jurisdiction: it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED by the Court that the appeal be 

dismissed in accordance with the opinion of this Court. It is FURTHER ordered that it 

appearing that the appellant is indigent and unable to pay costs, that no adjudication as to costs is 

made; and that this decision be certified below for observance.
#### Cohen Marketing International, Inc., Respondent, v National Equity Corp. et al., Appellants.

[700 NYS2d 18]

—Or*153der, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Bertram Katz, J.), entered November 9, 1998, which, in an action by a borrower against its factor to recover a prepayment penalty, incurred because defendant allegedly forced plaintiff to terminate the loan early, denied defendant’s motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

While the payoff amount set forth in the termination agreement, which plaintiff signed, establishes the aggregate amount defendant loaned to plaintiff less the aggregate amount defendant collected on plaintiff’s accounts receivable, and in that sense could be characterized as an account stated (see, *Shea & Gould v Burr,*194 AD2d 369, 370), such agreement is not a complete defense to the action. The agreement, which is in the form of a letter addressed to plaintiff’s new factor and terminates defendant’s right, title and interest in plaintiff’s assets, contains no indication that plaintiff was relinquishing the claim it now asserts against defendant arising out of the allegedly coerced termination of the loan. We note that defendant’s motion papers did not address plaintiff’s allegations that it was “forced” to enter into the termination agreement and that the payoff amount includes a prepayment penalty. Concur — Sullivan, J. P., Rosenberger, Nardelli, Williams and Friedman, JJ.