alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 154 (Monday, August 11, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43013-43014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21059]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Under the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    Notice is hereby given that on July 25, 1997, three proposed 
Consent Decrees in United States versus Alcan Aluminum, et al., Civil 
Action No. 97-3094, were lodged with the United States District Court 
for the Central District of Illinois.
    In this action, the United States sought to recover costs incurred 
in conducting response activities as a result of releases or threatened 
releases of hazardous substances at the Pierce Waste Oil Services Site, 
located in Springfield, Illinois. The proposed settlements are set 
forth in three Consent Decrees that address the liability of all 
twenty-six defendants in this action, each of which has been named as a 
generator of hazardous

[[Page 43014]]

substances sent to the Site. Twenty-one of the 26 defendants negotiated 
as a group in one settlement; four other defendants negotiated in 
another settlement; and one defendant settled in an ability-to-pay 
settlement. Together, these settlements will recover $1,307,280, not 
including interest.
    The Department of Justice will receive for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication comments relating to the Consent 
Decrees. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant Attorney General 
of the Environment and Natural Resources Division, Department of 
Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United States versus 
Alcan Aluminum, et al., D.J. Ref. 90-11-2-1177.
    The Consent Decrees may be examined at the office of the United 
States Attorney, Central District of Illinois, Room 312 Federal 
Building, 600 East Monroe Street, Springfield, Illinois 62701, at 
United States Environmental Protection Agency Region V, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, and at the Consent Decree Library, 
1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20005, (202) 624-0892. A 
copy of the Consent Decrees may be obtained in person or by mail from 
the Consent Decree Library, 1120 G Street, NW., 4th Floor, Washington, 
DC 20005. In requesting copies of these three proposed settlements, 
please enclose a check in the amount of $23.50 (25 cents per page 
reproduction cost) payable to the Consent Decree Library.
Joel M. Gross,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 97-21059 Filed 8-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
May 22, 2015

Mr. Andrew Saul

Alabama

Dear Mr. Andrew Saul:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption. It explains why we can not process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your April 28, 2015, exemption request on behalf into the public docket (No. FAA-2015-1194), but we are unable to pr ocess your request any further. The information you sent does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

 The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

 The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would benefit the public as a whole.

 The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you seek an exemption.

 Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described earlier to reach us within 30 days. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the exemption.2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brenda Robeson Program Analyst, Airmen and Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
Exhibit 99.3

                             CONFIRMATION OF MAILING



British Columbia Securities Commission
Alberta Securities Commission
Ontario Securities Commission
Commission des valeurs mobilieres du Quebec
The Manitoba Securities Commission
New Brunswick, Office of the Administrator
Newfoundland, Department of Government Services and Lands
Government of the Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia Securities Commission
Prince Edward Island, Registrar of Securities
Saskatchewan Securities Commission
Yukon, Registrar of Securities
Nunavut, Securities Division, Department of Justice

Toronto Stock Exchange


                    Re: Vasogen Inc. - SEDAR PROFILE NO. 1047

I hereby certify that Vasogen Inc. has sent the following items by pre-paid mail
on April 17, 2006, to each shareholder on the supplemental mailing list,
pursuant to the Canadian Securities Administrators' National Instrument 54-101
regarding communication to shareholders:

       (1)    interim financial statements for the period ending February 28,
              2006; and
       (2)    interim Management's Discussion and Analysis for the period ending
              February 28, 2006.

Dated this 17th day of April, 2006



"Glenn Neumann"
---------------------
Glenn Neumann
Director of Investor Relations
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 of Big Sky Industries III, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ending March 31, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Ramon Chimelis, President of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:





(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.



Dated: February 2, 2009



/s/ Ramon Chimelis

Ramon Chimelis, President

Big Sky Industries III, Inc.
#### James Lawrence WILLIAMS et al. v. STATE FARM MUTUAL AUTOMOBILE INS. CO. et al.

No. 60714.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 4, 1977.

In re: James Lawrence Williams and Mrs. Annie DiMattia Williams applying for certiorari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, Parish of Tangipahoa. 349 So.2d 1275.

Writ denied.
Exhibit 32


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 Franklin Wireless Corp. (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, OC Kim, President and Acting 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:




(a) The Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





Date: May 12, 2011


/s/ OC KimPresident and Acting Chief Financial Officer
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1345 

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate cost-sharing 

under the medicare program for bone mass measurements. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JUNE 30, 2005 

Mrs. LINCOLN (for herself and Mr. DEWINE) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to eliminate 

cost-sharing under the medicare program for bone mass 

measurements.

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

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Improved Access to 

5 Osteoporosis Testing Act of 2005’’. 

6 SEC. 2. ELIMINATION OF COST-SHARING FOR BONE MASS 

7 MEASUREMENTS. 

8 (a) ELIMINATION OF COINSURANCE.— 
2

•S 1345 IS

1 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 1833(a)(1)(N) of 

2 the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395l(a)(1)(N)) 

3 is amended— 

4 (A) by inserting ‘‘other than bone mass 

5 measurement described in section 1861(s)(15)’’ 

6 after ‘‘(as defined in section 1848(j)(3))’’; and 

7 (B) by adding after the comma at the end 

8 the following: ‘‘and in the case of such services 

9 consisting of such a bone mass measurement, 

10 the amounts paid shall be 100 percent of such 

11 payment basis,’’. 

12 (2) ELIMINATION OF COINSURANCE IN OUT13 PATIENT HOSPITAL SETTINGS.—The third sentence 

14 of section 1866(a)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act 

15 (42 U.S.C. 1395cc(a)(2)(A)) is amended by insert16 ing after ‘‘1861(s)(10)(A)’’ the following: ‘‘, with re17 spect to bone mass measurement (as defined in sec18 tion 1861(rr)),’’. 

19 (b) WAIVER OF DEDUCTIBLE.—The first sentence of 

20 section 1833(b) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 

21 1395l(b)) is amended— 

22 (1) by striking ‘‘and’’ before ‘‘(6)’’; and 

23 (2) by inserting before the period at the end the 

24 following: ‘‘, and (7) such deductible shall not apply 
3

•S 1345 IS

1 with respect to bone mass measurement (as defined 

2 in section 1861(rr))’’. 

3 (c) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by 

4 this section shall apply to items and services furnished on 

5 or after January 1, 2006.

Æ
EX-10.15



 





EXHIBIT 10.15









September 27, 2007




Ansoft Corporation

225 West Station Square Drive

Suite 200

Pittsburgh, PA 15219

Attn: Shane Emswiler





			
	Re:	 	Extension of Expiration Date for $30,000,000.00 Revolving Credit Facility Commitment





Dear
Mr. Emswiler:




     Capitalized
terms used herein shall have the meanings ascribed to them in the Loan Agreement (as hereinafter defined). We are pleased to
inform you that your Revolving Credit Facility Commitment has been renewed. The Revolving Credit Facility Expiry Date, as set forth in that certain Loan Agreement dated October 21, 2004 (the “Loan Agreement”), has been extended from October 21, 2007
to October 21, 2008, effective on October 22, 2007. All other terms and conditions of the Loan Agreement, and all Loan Documents executed and delivered in connection therewith, remain in full force and effect.



     It has been a pleasure working with you and I look forward to a continued successful relationship. Thank you again for your business.



Very truly yours,



	 	 	 	 	 
	PNC BANK, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 
	By:

	 	/s/ Brett R. Schweikle	 	 
	 

	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Brett R. Schweikle	 	 
	 

	 	Vice President	 	 






A
member of The PNC Financial Services Group


One PNC
Plaza   249 Fifth Avenue   Pittsburgh
  Pennsylvania   15222 2707
# C_2016136EN.01002702.xml

| 18.4.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 136/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

18.4.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 136/27

---

Judgment of the General Court of 29 February 2016 — Deutsche Bahn and Others v Commission

(Case T-267/12) (1)

1

((Competition - Agreements, decisions and concerted practices - International air freight forwarding services - Decision finding an infringement of Article 101 TFEU - Price fixing - Surcharges and charging mechanisms affecting the final price - Evidence contained in an application for immunity - Protection of the confidentiality of communications between lawyers and clients - Code of Conduct rules on the duty of loyalty and prohibition on double representation - Fiduciary duties - Whether unlawful conduct can be attributed - Choice of companies - Fines - Proportionality - Gravity of the infringement - Mitigating circumstances - Equal treatment - Cooperation - Partial immunity from a fine - Unlimited jurisdiction - Settlement - 2006 Guidelines on the method of setting fines))

(2016/C 136/38)

Language of the case: English

Parties

Parties

Applicants: Deutsche Bahn and Others (Berlin, Germany), Schenker AG (Essen, Germany), Schenker China Ltd (Shanghai, China), and Schenker International (HK) Ltd (Hong Kong, China) (represented by: F. Montag, B. Kacholdt, F. Hoseinian, lawyers, and by D. Colgan and T. Morgan, Solicitors)

Applicants:

Defendant: European Commission (represented by: initially by A. Dawes and N. von Lingen, and subsequently by A. Dawes and G. Meessen, acting as Agents, and by B. Kennelly and H. Mussa, Barristers)

Defendant:

Re:

Re:

Application for annulment of Commission Decision C(2012) 1959 final of 28 March 2012 relating to a proceeding under Article 101 [TFEU] and Article 53 of the EEA Agreement (Case COMP/39462 — Freight forwarding), in so far as it concerns the applicants, and for variation of the fines imposed on them in that decision.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

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

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (HK) Ltd to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Deutsche Bahn AG, Schenker AG, Schenker China Ltd and Schenker International (HK) Ltd to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 243, 11.8.2012.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 158 (Friday, August 15, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Pages 43774-43775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-21602]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY


Submission to OMB for Review; Comment Request

August 4, 1997.
    The Department of Treasury has submitted the following public 
information collection requirement(s) to OMB for review and clearance 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Pub. L. 104-13. Copies of 
the submission(s) may be obtained by calling the Treasury Bureau 
Clearance Officer listed. Comments regarding this information 
collection should be addressed to the OMB reviewer listed and to the 
Treasury Department Clearance Officer, Department of the Treasury, Room 
2110, 1425 New York Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20220.

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

    OMB Number: 1545-0991.
    Form Number: IRS Form 8633.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Application to Participate in the Electronic Filing Program.
    Description: Form 8633 will be used by tax preparers, electronic 
return collectors, software firms, service bureaus and electronic 
transmitters, as an application to participate in the electronic filing 
program covering individual income tax returns.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 50,000.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 1 hour.
    Frequency of Response: Annually.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 50,000 hours.

    OMB Number: 1545-1543.
    Revenue Procedure Number: Revenue Procedure 97-29.
    Type of Review: Extension.
    Title: Model Amendments and Prototype Program for SIMPLE IRAs.

[[Page 43775]]

    Description: The revenue procedure (1) provides a model amendment 
that may be used prior to January 1, 1999, by a sponsor of a prototype 
IRA, (2) provides guidance to drafters of prototype SIMPLE IRAs on 
obtaining opinion letters, (3) provides permissive amendments to 
sponsors of non-SIMPLE IRAs, (4) announces the opening of a prototype 
program for SIMPLE IRA Plans, and (5) provides transitional relief.
    Respondents: Business or other for-profit, Not-for-profit 
institutions.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 3,205.
    Estimated Burden Hours Per Respondent: 8 hours, 4 minutes.
    Frequency of Response: On occasion.
    Estimated Total Reporting Burden: 25,870 hours.
    Clearance Officer: Garrick Shear, (202) 622-3869, Internal Revenue 
Service, Room 5571, 1111 Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20224.
    OMB Reviewer: Alexander T. Hunt, (202) 395-7860, Office of 
Management and Budget, Room 10226, New Executive Office Building, 
Washington, DC 20503.
Lois K. Holland,
Departmental Reports, Management Officer.
[FR Doc. 97-21602 Filed 8-14-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
No. 42173.

#### Protests 692806-G, etc., of G. Cresci et al. (New York).

Opinion by

Keefe, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel and on the authority of *Locatelli*v. *United States*(T. D. 48284) and Abstracts 39667 and 40880 the protests were sustained.
Appendix D 

Emissions Preparation and Results 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 1

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.1 

Emissions Inventory 

Quality Assurance Project Plan 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 2

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.2a 

Emissions Inventory Documentation 

Point Source EI Documentation 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 3

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.2b 

Mobile and Area Sources 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 4

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.3 

Emissions Inventory Summaries 

VISTAS BASE 2G ANNUAL EMISSION SUMMARIES 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 5

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.4 

Emissions Modeling Documentation 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 6

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.4b 

Temporal Profile Development for 

Electric Generating Units 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 7

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.5 

VISTAS Emission Inventory 

Supporting Documentation 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 8

January 18, 2008
Appendix D.6 

TDEC-APC Emission Inventory 

Supporting Documentation 

Pre-Hearing Draft

Regional Haze SIP for TN Class I Areas

Appendix D - 9

January 18, 2008
Order entered August 23, 2019

In The

Court of Appeals 

Fifth District of Texas at Dallas 

No. 05-19-00053-CR

No. 05-19-00054-CR

JIMMY EARL SHELLY, Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee

On Appeal from the 282nd Judicial District Court

Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause Nos. F18-75945-S & F18-75947-S

ORDER

Before the Court is pro se appellant’s August 19, 2019 motion for a copy of the record. 

In the motion, appellant alleges he has not received “trial transcripts.”

We ORDER appellant’s counsel, Sharita Blacknall, to send appellant copies of the 

clerk’s and reporter’s records and to provide this Court, within FIFTEEN DAYS of the date of 

this order, with written verification that the record has been sent to appellant.

We DIRECT the Clerk to transmit a copy of this order by electronic transmission to 

counsel for the parties.

We further DIRECT the Clerk to send a copy of this order, by first class mail, to Jimmy 
Earl Shelly; TDCJ No. 02242800; Polunsky Unit; 3872 FM 350 South; Livingston, Texas 77351.

On the Court’s own motion, we extend the time for filing appellant’s pro se response to 

October 4, 2019.

/s/ LANA MYERS 

JUSTICE
#### Ex parte John Douglas COLE.

No. 77-118.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Dec. 2, 1977.

*21JONES, Justice.

WRIT DENIED.

TORBERT, C. J., and MADDOX, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Ralph A. JOHNSTON, Respondent.

No. 51095.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1977.

*1023Grady Lynn Kilpatrick, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

PER CURIAM.

This is a disciplinary proceeding against respondent, Ralph A. Johnston, a member of The Florida Bar. The respondent did not appear before the referee and has filed no responsive pleadings in this court. The referee made the following findings and recommendations of law:

> 1. RALPH A. JOHNSTON is guilty of violation of Rule 11-02(4) of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar, and of Disciplinary Rules 1-102(A)(4), and 9-102(B)(4) of the Code of Professional Responsibility;

> 2. RALPH A. JOHNSTON is guilty of violation of Rules 11.02(3)(a), and 11.-02(3)(b) of the Integration Rule of the Florida Bar and of Disciplinary Rule 1-102(A)(3) of the Code of Professional Responsibility, in that said RALPH A. JOHNSTON wrongfully and illegally converted to his own use the sum of $13,000.00 the property of his client, JOSE ELQUEZABAL; and

> The Referee recommends that the accused RALPH A. JOHNSTON should be found guilty of misconduct justifying disciplinary measures which should be disbarment from the right to practice law in the State of Florida.

Ralph A. Johnston has previously been the subject of disciplinary proceedings, having been suspended from the practice of law by this court on January 28, 1976, *In re Johnston,*327 So.2d 9 (Fla.1976), and again on April 28, 1976, *In re Johnston,*332 So.2d 13 (Fla.1976).

We have examined the report of the referee and the record of the proceedings. We find the record sufficient to sustain the findings of the referee and to justify his recommendation. Accordingly, respondent, Ralph A. Johnston, is disbarred from the practice of law in Florida upon the effective date of this order and shall pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $507.40.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, BOYD, HATCHETT and KARL, JJ., 'concur.
August 14, 2014



### JUDGMENT 

## The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

RONALD LEGG , Appellant

NO. 14

- 14

- 00547

- CR V. NO. 14

- 14

- 00548

- CR

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Ap pellee

________________________________ Th e s e cause s w ere heard on the transcript of the record s of the court below. The record s indicate that the appeal s should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal s DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion , appellan t pay all costs incurred by reason of the s e appeal s , and that this decision be certified below for observance.