alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 18 (Tuesday, January 28, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 4042]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-1972]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. SA97-1-000]


PanEnergy Texas Intrastate Pipeline Company; Notice of Petition 
for Adjustment

Janaury 22, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 23, 1996, PanEnergy Texas Intrastate 
Pipeline Company (PanEnergy) filed pursuant to Section 502(C) of the 
Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978 (NGPA), a petition for adjustment under 
Section 285.123(b)(1)(ii) of the Commission's Regulations to permit 
PanEnergy to use its tariff on file with the Railroad Commission of 
Texas (TRC), for suspendable interruptible transportation services 
performed pursuant to NGPA Section 311.
    In support of its petition, PanEnergy states that it provides 
intrastate transportation service within the State of Texas, and is a 
gas utility subject to the jurisdiction of the TRC. PanEnergy states 
that it was formed in order to operate pipeline facilities spun down by 
Florida Gas Transmission Company, and later sold to PanEnergy Field 
Services. Those facilities are called the ``North Citrus System''. 
PanEnergy provides intrastate service to Onyx Pipeline Company, L.C. 
(Onyx).
    Subsequently, PanEnergy also acquired an intrastate pipeline from 
Falfurrias Pipeline Company, successor-in-interest to Mobil Vanderbilt-
Beaumont Pipeline Company (Mobil Vanderbilt). Mobil Vanderbilt, and 
subsequently, Falfurrias, offered Section 311 service pursuant to 
Commission order (73 FERC para. 61,256 (1995)). The Falfurrias line is 
now being operated as a small but integral part of PanEnergy's system. 
PanEnergy is now interested in offering interruptible Section 311 
service which would use the integrated system. It requests that the 
intrastate service performed on behalf of Onyx should be viewed as 
``comparable'' to that contemplated under Section 311.
    The regulations applicable to this proceeding are found in Subpart 
K of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. Any person 
desiring to participate in this rate proceeding must file a motion to 
intervene in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedures. All motions must be 
filed with the Secretary of the Commission within 15 days after 
publication of this notice in the Federal Register. The petition for 
adjustment is on file with the Commission and is available for public 
inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-1972 Filed 1-27-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit
      32.3





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 Amendment No.1 to Annual Report of ATC Healthcare, Inc.
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the year ending February 28, 2007 as filed with
      the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I,
      David Savitsky, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby certify, to
      the
      best of my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
      to
      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





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





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







/S/
      DAVID
      SAVITSKY


David
      Savitsky


Chief
      Executive Officer


May
      31,
      2007
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2300 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2300

   To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain States 
             subject to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 18, 2012

Mr. Moran (for himself and Mr. Roberts) introduced the following bill; 
 which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Environment and 
                              Public Works

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To allow for a reasonable compliance deadline for certain States 
             subject to the Cross State Air Pollution Rule.

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

SECTION 1. FINDING.

    Congress finds that an approximate 180-day period before which 
States and utilities are required to comply with certain new rules 
regarding maximum permissible emissions of ozone, sulfur dioxide, or 
nitrogen oxides under the Cross State Air Pollution Rule is 
insufficient for those States and utilities to achieve that compliance.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

    In this Act:
            (1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the 
        Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
            (2) Clean air interstate rule.--The term ``Clean Air 
        Interstate Rule'' means the final rule promulgated by the 
        Administrator entitled ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of 
        Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); 
        Revisions to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOX SIP Call'' 
        (70 Fed. Reg. 25162 (May 12, 2005)).
            (3) Cross state air pollution rule.--The term ``Cross State 
        Air Pollution Rule'' means the final rule promulgated by the 
        Administrator entitled ``Federal Implementation Plans: 
        Interstate Transport of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone and 
        Correction of SIP Approvals'' (76 Fed. Reg. 48208 (August 8, 
        2011)) and revisions to that final rule entitled ``Revisions to 
        Federal Implementation Plans To Reduce Interstate Transport of 
        Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone'' (77 Fed. Reg. 10324 
        (February 21, 2012)).

SEC. 3. EXTENSION OF COMPLIANCE DEADLINE.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of law, a State that was not 
required to reduce emissions or levels of ozone, sulfur dioxide, or 
nitrogen oxides under the Clean Air Interstate Rule shall not be 
required to comply with any requirement under the Cross State Air 
Pollution Rule before January 1, 2017.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT 99.4
                                  CERTIFICATION

         Pursuant to Section  906 of the Public  Company  Accounting  Reform and
Investor Protection Act of 2002 (18 U.S.C.ss. 1350, as adopted), Gary D. Wrench,
the Chief Financial  Officer of OpticNet,  Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies
that, to the best of his knowledge:

1.       The  Company's  Quarterly  Report  on Form  10-Q for the  period  ended
         December 28, 2002, to which this  Certification  is attached as Exhibit
         99.4 (the "Quarterly Report"),  fully complies with the requirements of
         Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities  Exchange Act of 1934,
         as amended; and

2.       The information  contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents,  in
         all material  respects,  the financial  condition of the Company at the
         end of the  period  covered  by the  Quarterly  Report  and  results of
         operations  of the  Company  for the period  covered  by the  Quarterly
         Report.

Dated: February 10, 2003
       ------------------------

/s/ Gary D. Wrench
-------------------------------
Gary D. Wrench
Chief Financial Officer

Page 23 of 23
**Exhibit 32.2**

AMTECH SYSTEMS, INC. AND ITS SUBSIDIARIES

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 Annual Report of Amtech Systems, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended September 30, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Robert T. Hass, Vice President – Finance and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 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.

|   | By     | /s/ Robert   T. Hass                                           |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                |
|   |   | Robert T.   Hass                                               |
|   |   | Vice   President – Finance and    Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   | Date:   December 29, 2005                                      |
#### Davidson & Strauss *v.*United States

No. 6236.

Invoice dated Koln, Germany, October 19, 1931.

Certified October 22, 1931.

Entered at San Franciscd, Calif., December 2, 1931.

Entry No. 7323.

(Decided November 28, 1945)

*Harper & Harper (Lawrence A. Harper*and *Walter I. Carpeneti*of counsel) for the plaintiff.

*Paul P. Bao,*Assistant Attorney General *(Samuel D. Spector,*special attorney), for the defendant.

Oliver, Presiding Judge:

On July 5, 1939, a “Notice to Importer of Advance in Value upon Appraisement” on customs Form 4301 was sent to the plaintiff firm by the collector informing it that as the result of appraisement of certain wire netting imported thereby from Germany, special dumping duties accrued under the provisions of the Antidumping Act of 1921 (19 U.S.C. §160-171), whereupon this appeal for reappraisement was filed within the statutory time provided therefor.

On the trial of the case, plaintiff moved in evidence the official papers. An examination of the summary sheet attached to the invoice discloses that the only designation made by the collector under *466section 499 of the Tariff Act of 1930 of the packages to be examined was as follows:

> U. S. Appraiser will examine at wharf before delivery.

Such a designation was held in the case of *United States*v. *Stauffer Eshleman & Co., Ltd., et al.,*9 Cust. Ct. 641, Reap. Dec. 5732, not ta comply with the mandatory provisions of section 499, *supra,*with respect to the designation of packages or quantities to be opened and examined for the purposes of appraisement.

Furthermore, the testimony'of the examiner who passed the merchandise and of the appraiser who approved his action in this case shows that none "of the merchandise was examined by either of them. Such failure to examine renders the appraisement void. *(United States*v. *V. W. Davis,*20 C. C. P. A. 305, T. D. 46087.)

The appraisement in the case at bar took place on July 23, 1938, two days before the effective date of the Customs Administrative Act of 1938 (52 Stat. 1077), which provided that notwithstanding a finding that the original appraisement was void, a determination of the value of the merchandise must be made in reappraisement cases. The provisions of the Customs Administrative Axt have no application to the situation herein, and I therefore find the appraisement in this case to have been null and void *ab initio. (United States*v. *Joseph Fischer as Liquidating Agent of Schmoll Fils Assd., Inc., et al.,*32 C. C. P. A. 62, C. A. D. 286.)

Judgment will be rendered accordingly.
Exhibit 31.2

                                  CERTIFICATION

I, Howard Solovei, Chief Financial Officer of Intraop Medical Corporation,
certify that:

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

2.   Based on my knowledge, this 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 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.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and we have:

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

(b)  evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness
of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered
by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most recent
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and

5.   The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of the registrant's board of
directors:

(a)  all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably
likely to adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial information; and

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


                                            /s/ Howard Solovei
                                         ----------------------------------
                                             Howard Solovei
                                             Chief Financial Officer

                                             Dated: February 14, 2008
# C_2013026EN.01004701.xml

| 26.1.2013 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 26/47 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

26.1.2013

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 26/47

---

Order of the General Court of 20 November 2012 — Marcuccio v Commission

(Case T-491/11 P) (1)

1

(Appeal - Civil service - Officials - Duration of the procedure for recognising partial permanent invalidity - Harm allegedly suffered by the appellant - Reimbursement of avoidable costs - Action at first instance dismissed as manifestly devoid of any basis in law - Article 94(a) of the Rules of Procedure of the Civil Service Tribunal)

2013/C 26/92

Language of the case: Italian

Parties

Parties

Appellant: Luigi Marcuccio (Tricase, Italy) (represented by: G. Cipressa, lawyer)

Appellant:

Other party to the proceedings: European Commission (represented by: J. Currall and C. Berardis-Kayser, Agents, and A. Del Ferro, lawyer)

Other party to the proceedings:

Re:

Re:

Appeal against the order of the Civil Service Tribunal of the European Union (Third Chamber) of 30 June 2011 in Case F-14/10 Marcuccio v Commission, not published in the ECR, seeking to have that order set aside.

Marcuccio

Commission

Operative part of the order

Operative part of the order

| 1. | The appeal is dismissed. |
| --- | --- |

1.

The appeal is dismissed.

| 2. | Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Mr Luigi Marcuccio is ordered to bear his own costs and to pay the costs incurred by the Commission in the appeal proceedings.

---

(1)  OJ C 331, 12.11.2011.

1

---
#### Robert T. STRONG and Julie Y. Strong, Appellants, v. Hortensio DELGADO and Nellie Geraldine Delgado, his wife, Appellees.

No. 75-1219.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

July 8, 1977.

Rehearing Denied Aug. 10, 1977.

James W. Knight, Jr., of Huebner, Shaw & Bunnell, Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Kenneth G. Stevens, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

Upon consideration of the record and briefs of the respective parties, we determine the trial court erred in entering final judgment of foreclosure of a mortgage on a harmless technical breach of the mortgage agreement for it would be inequitable and unjust. Accordingly, the final judgment of foreclosure is reversed and the cause remanded to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with the views herein expressed.

Reversed and remanded, with directions.

MAGER, C. J., and CROSS and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2406 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2406

To suspend temporarily the duty on thermoplastic biodegradable polymer 
                                 blend.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 26, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on thermoplastic biodegradable polymer 
                                 blend.

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

SECTION 1. THERMOPLASTIC BIODEGRADABLE POLYMER BLEND.

    (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         Thermoplastic      Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/ ''.
                          biodegradable                                                      31/2015
                          polymer blend
                          containing 1,4-
                          benzenedicarboxyl
                          ic acid, dimethyl
                          ester, polymer
                          with 1,4-
                          butanediol and
                          hexanedioic acid
                          (CAS No. 55231-08-
                          8 and/or 1,4-
                          benzenedicarboxyl
                          ic acid polymer
                          with 1,4
                          butanediol and
                          decanedioic acid
                          (CAS No. 28205-74-
                          5) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3913.90.50)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
No. 56762.

protests 144103-K, etc. (New York).

#### Pongees Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Ford, J.

The record established that certain items of the involved merchandise consist of woven silk fabrics, valued at more than $5.50 per pound, the same in all material respects as those passed upon in *Walter Strassburger & Co., Inc., et al.*v. *United States*(26 Cust. Ct. 210, C. D. 1326). Upon the established facts and following the cited authority, it was held that the merchandise imported or withdrawn from warehouse prior to January 1, 1948, is dutiable at 45 percent under paragraph 1205, as modified by T. D. 48316, and that which was imported or withdrawn from warehouse subsequent to said date is dutiable at 25 percent under said paragraph, as modified by T. D. 51802,
#### Ex parte Bryan Eric WOLFE.

No. 35681-01.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

May 20, 1998.

George Michael Jamail, Beaumont, for appellant.

J. R. Dewitt, Asst. Dist. Atty., Beaumont, Matthew Paul, State’s Atty., Austin, for State.

BAIRD, Judge,

dissenting.

This is a post-conviction application for wilt of habeas corpus filed pursuant to Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071. Applicant is represented by counsel appointed by this Court. The instant application appears to allege ineffective assistance of trial counsel, but also includes a wish list of discovery, research, and hearings necessary to represent applicant. No cases are cited. No analysis of the law is presented. Indeed, even the State recognizes this “application” appears to be a motion for discovery.

Under these circumstances, the merits of the instant application should not be reached. Instead, this matter should be remanded to the habeas court to determine whether applicant has been afforded effective assistance of counsel on this habeas application as required by Tex.Code Crim. Proc. Ann. art. 11.071 § 2.1 Because the majority does not, I dissent.

OVERSTREET, J., joins this opinion.

1

. Section 2(a) provides:

> An applicant shall be represented by competent counsel unless the applicant has elected to proceed pro se and the convicting court finds, after a hearing on the record, that the applicant’s election is intelligent and voluntary.
No. 45288.

#### Protest 711228-G of Q. W. Lung & Co. (Boston).

Opinion by

Evans, J.

It was stipulated that the merchandise consists of dried lily flowers the same as those the subject of Abstract 29022. The claim at 35 percent under paragraph 775 was therefore sustained.
|  | APHIS ServicesFind Traveler's InformationSearch RegulationsFind Permit Application Information-- Download permit forms-- Apply Online for Import Authorization-- Apply to Import, Move or Field Test-- Nursery Stock Permits-- View Status of Biotech Applications Genetically Engineered OrganismsAgricultural Select Agent ProgramLocate Missing PetsApply for AWA Licenses/RegistrationFind Vet Accreditation InformationLocate Wildlife Damage ResourcesReport a Pest or DiseaseView Small Business Information |
|--|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|  |
|--|

|        |                                             |  |  |  |  |
|--------|---------------------------------------------|--|--|--|--|
|   | Agricultural Select Agent Program Home Page |