alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 174 (Tuesday, September 9, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 47477]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-23793]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. RP97-487-000]


Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC; Notice of Filing

September 3, 1997.
    Take notice that on August 28, 1997, Garden Banks Gas Pipeline, LLC 
(``GBCP'') tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original 
Volume No. 1, revised tariff sheet nos. 89 and 90, to become effective 
July 1, 1997.
    GBGP states that the purpose of this filing is to update the tariff 
to reflect an accurate index listing, since Natural Gas Intelligence 
Gas Price Index for ``South Louisiana Region, Interstate Avg. (Off)'' 
has been discontinued. The tariff has been changed to state a posting 
of ``South Louisiana Region, Tennessee Line 500'' effective July 1, 
1997.
    GBGP submits that the Commission should grant it all waivers 
necessary to change this index effective July 1, 1997.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions and protests must be filed as 
provided in Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-23793 Filed 9-8-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JAN-31-1999
<CASH>                                         203,100
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               203,100
<PP&E>                                               0
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 570,233
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            1,907
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       664,008
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   570,233
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                43,572
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (95,682)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (95,682)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (95,682)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  (0.007)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.007)
        

</TABLE>
# L_2023100EN.01010101.xml

| 13.4.2023 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 100/101 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

13.4.2023

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 100/101

---

Corrigendum to Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2023/254 of 6 February 2023 amending Implementing Regulation (EU) 2020/761 as regards certain technical rules on the management of tariff rate quotas

(
  Official Journal of the European Union L 35 of 7 February 2023
  )

On page 6, in Article 2, third paragraph, point (a):

for:

| ‘(a) | Article 1(2), points (3)(b)(i) and (ii), and (3)(c)(i) and (ii), and point (6) of the Annex shall apply as from the first day of 90-day period after the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union or, where applicable, to the first application period opening after that period;’, |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

Article 1(2), points (3)(b)(i) and (ii), and (3)(c)(i) and (ii), and point (6) of the Annex shall apply as from the first day of 90-day period after the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union or, where applicable, to the first application period opening after that period;’,

Official Journal of the European Union

read:

| ‘(a) | Article 1(2), points (3)(b)(i) and (ii), and (3)(c)(i) and (ii), and point (6) of the Annex shall apply as from the first day after the 90-day period that follows the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union or, where applicable, to the first application period opening after that period;’. |
| --- | --- |

‘(a)

Article 1(2), points (3)(b)(i) and (ii), and (3)(c)(i) and (ii), and point (6) of the Annex shall apply as from the first day after the 90-day period that follows the publication of this Regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union or, where applicable, to the first application period opening after that period;’.

Official Journal of the European Union

---
<PAGE>   1


                                                                    Exhibit 23.1

Consent of Independent Certified Public Accountants

The Source Information Management Company
St. Louis, Missouri

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statement Form S-8 (No. 333-16039) of The Source Information Management Company
(the Company) of our reports dated April 14, 2000, relating to the consolidated
financial statements and schedule of the Company appearing in the Company's
Annual Report on Form 10-K as of and for the year ended January 31, 2000.



/s/BDO Seidman, LLP
St. Louis, Missouri
April 28, 2000
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

MERION PACE,

Petitioner :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 391 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 26th day of February, 2018

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.

Justice Wecht did not participate in the consideration or decision of this matter.
**Exhibit      32.1**

**Certification      of the Principal Executive Officer Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley      Act of 2002**

**(i)**
**(ii)**

|                               | **Weststar                Financial Services Corporation** |
|------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------|
|                               |                                                       |   |
|                               |                                                       |   |
| Date:                March 2, 2007 | By:                                                        | /s/                G. Gordon Greenwood |
|                               |                                                       | G.                Gordon Greenwood |
|                               |                                                       | President                & Chief Executive Officer |
Nebraska Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinions

NOT Selected for Posting to Court Website

(released the week prior to August 9, 2022)

The following memorandum opinions were filed by the Nebraska Court of 

Appeals and can be viewed using SSCALES:

A-22-088, State v. Hawhee

A-22-089

The above-listed memorandum opinions can be viewed online through the 

appellate court case search available by subscription through Nebraska.gov:

http://www.nebraska.gov/subscriber/.

Current subscribers to Nebraska.gov can search appellate court cases here:

https://www.nebraska.gov/courts/sccales/.
#### Robert E. WHITEHEAD v. CLIX PHOTO CENTERS, INC., et al.

SC 2305.

Supreme Court of Alabama.

Jan. 27, 1978.

Robert E. Whitehead, pro se.

Lawrence B. Voit, Irving Silver, Mobile, for appellees.

MADDOX, Justice.

Plaintiff, Robert E. Whitehead, brought an action against Clix Photo Centers, Inc., Baranco Color Labs, Inc., N. Barry Wein-*328stein and Katie P. Weinstein, claiming that Clix Photo and Baranco owed him $6,519.73, the amount of a promissory note, plus interest at 8%. Plaintiff further alleged that defendants Barry and Katie Weinstein had guaranteed payment to the extent of 25% each of the unpaid balance of the note upon default by Clix Photo and Baranco. The defendants answered, generally denying the allegations and pleading special defenses including failure of consideration and fraud. Defendants counter-claimed, alleging that Whitehead’s fraudulent acts were the proximate cause of damages they allegedly suffered in an amount of $70,000.

Whitehead was incarcerated in the federal prison in Atlanta on a federal conviction after he filed his action. He requested, and was granted, the right to prosecute his action pro se, after his counsel withdrew from the case.

Whitehead, on his own behalf, filed motions for summary judgment and requested the court to issue a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum in order that he might appear at all pre-trial and trial proceedings. Both motions were denied.

The trial court granted Whitehead’s request to appeal in forma pauperis. Rule 24, A.R.A.P. Whitehead took this appeal and raises two issues:

(1) The trial judge erred in denying his motion for summary judgment.

(2) The trial judge abused his discretion in refusing to grant his request for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.

I

The defendants filed a motion to dismiss Whitehead’s appeal from the order of the trial judge denying his motion for summary judgment. The motion to dismiss is well taken. An order denying summary judgment is interlocutory and is nonappealable unless by permission. 6 Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 56.21[2]; *Dick v. First National Bank of Birmingham,*334 So.2d 922 (Ala.Civ.App.1976).

Having dismissed the appeal, we preter-mit consideration of Whitehead’s argument that the trial judge should have granted his petition for a writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum.

The motion to dismiss the appeal from the order denying Whitehead’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

APPEAL DISMISSED.

TORBERT, C. J., and JONES, SHORES and BEATTY, JJ., concur.
No. 00-7184.

#### Dunn *v.*United States.

C. A. 9th Cir. Cer-tiorari denied.
No. 9432.

#### The Brooks Company *v.*Tolman.

(Decided February 20, 1906.)

Error to Circuit Court of Cuyahoga county.

*Mr. Arnold Green,*for plaintiff in error.

*Mr. Wm. E. Patterson,*for defendant in error.

Judgment affirmed.

Shauck, C. J., Crew, Spear and Davis, JJ., concur.
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  Mind2Market,   Inc.  (the
"Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report").  I,
James Clark,  CEO of the company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 USC Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that to the
best of my knowledge and belief.

        (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.


                                         /s/ James Clark
                                         --------------------------------
                                         James Clark, CEO

Dated: November 16, 2004
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 23
- 0406 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. DAVID ALLEN PEIN,

Defendant and Appellant
.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including November 20 , 202 4, within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

October 3 2024

10/03/2024

Case Number: DA 23-0406
# EUR-Lex - 51998IP0636 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 51998IP0636

**Resolution on Chad **

*
Official Journal C 210 , 06/07/1998 P. 0210 *

B4-0636, 0646 and 0651/98

Resolution on Chad

The European Parliament,

- having regard to its previous resolutions on the situation in Chad,

A. having regard to the serious human rights violations in Chad since October 1997 which reached their peak with the massacre of 100 unarmed civilians in the Logone region in march 1998, along with executions, arbitrary arrests and torture by the Chadian security forces, as denounced by Amnesty International and Chadian human rights organizations,

B. whereas Ngarledji Yorongar, an opposition member of parliament, was arrested on 2 June 1998 on charges of defamation,

C. deeply concerned about the recent arrests of the journalists Koumbo Synga and Polycarpe Togamessi,

D. whereas Mr Yorongar has been a strong critic of the Chad - Cameroon oil extraction and pipeline project, which is led by an international consortium and is awaiting World Bank approval which is conditional on the conclusion of an environmental impact assessment due before the autumn,

E. whereas the international consortium has stated in public that it will not proceed with this project without World Bank involvement,

F. noting the vulnerability of the local communities in the area covered by the project due to the persistent political instability and human rights violations; noting also the importance of the region for the country's agriculture,

1. Urges the Council, the Commission and the Member States to put pressure on the Chad Government to respect human rights and the rule of law throughout the country and to suspend immediately military activities in the southern region;

2. Calls for the immediate release of Ngarledji Yorongar and urges the Chadian Government to respect democratic discussion on the situation in the country as well as on the planned oil project in the Doba region;

3. Calls on the Chad Government and the international consortium to proceed with the oil extraction project only if the World Bank assessment is positive, and to provide the following guarantees among others:

- improved public dissemination of information regarding the oil project;

- protection of indigenous peoples and adequate compensation for displaced local populations in strict respect for human rights;

- the most stringent environmental protection rules, including oil-spill prevention, pipeline routing, air quality, disease control and accident prevention;

- local re-investment of an adequate share of the revenue from the project;

4. Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments of the Member States, the Chad and Cameroon governments and parliaments and the World Bank.

10
#### C. S. PAUL, as Tax Collector for Volusia County, etc.; Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., the Comptroller of the State of Florida; James Bailey, as Tax Assessor for Volusia County, etc.; and the County of Volusia, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, Petitioners, v. DAYTONA BEACH RACING AND RECREATIONAL FACILITIES DISTRICT, a body politic and corporate under the laws of the State of Florida; and the City of Daytona Beach, a Florida municipal corporation, Respondents.

No. 37519.

Supreme Court of Florida.

Sept. 24, 1968.

On Rehearing June 4, 1969.

Rehearing Denied July 14, 1969.

Paul Raymond and William M. Barr, of Raymond, Wilson, Karl & Conway, Daytona Beach, for C. S. Paul, as Tax Collector, etc., and James Bailey, as Tax Assessor, etc.

Charles W. Luther, Daytona Beach, for Fred O. Dickinson, Jr., as Comptroller, etc., and County of Volusia, etc.

Thomas T. Cobb, of Black, Cobb, Cole, Crotty & Sigerson, Daytona Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court on Petition for Writ of Certiorari, jurisdictional briefs and portions of the record deemed necessary to reflect jurisdiction under Florida Appellate Rule 4.5, subd. c(6), 32 F.S.A., and it appearing to the Court that it is without jurisdiction, it is ordered that the Petition for Writ of Certiorari be and the same is hereby denied, Fla.App., 208 So.2d 653.

*300THOMAS, ROBERTS, THORNAL and ERVIN, JJ., concur.

CALDWELL, C. J., and DREW and ADAMS, JJ., dissent.

ON REHEARING

PER CURIAM.

After oral argument on rehearing granted, we adhere to our order of September 24, 1968, denying the petition for writ of certiorari.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., ROBERTS, DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., and MASON, Circuit Judge, concur.
#### Virgie BOLDEN v. GEORGIA CASUALTY AND SURETY COMPANY.

No. 61594.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Feb. 24, 1978.

In re: Virgie Bolden applying for certio-rari, or writ of review, to the Court of Appeal, Third Circuit. Parish of Beauregard. 353 So.2d 492.

Granted.

It is ordered that the writ of review issue; that the Court of Appeal send up the record in duplicate of the case; and that counsel for plaintiff and defendant be notified.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-50951 Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus JOSE LEON GONZALEZ-LONGORIA, also known as Juan Vela, also known as Alfred Martinez, Defendant-Appellant.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. SA-92-CR-65-1

- - - - - - - - - - June 19, 2002 Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS, and EMILIO M. GARZA, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Jose Leon Gonzalez-Longoria, federal prisoner #59761-079, has filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) on appeal. Our review of the record and pleadings indicates that Gonzalez-Longoria’s appeal from the denial of his motion for modification of an imposed sentence lacks arguable merit, and the district court did not err in finding that the instant appeal was not taken in good faith. See Howard v. King , 707 F.2d 215,No. 01-50951 -2- 219-20 (5th Cir. 1983); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3). Accordingly, Gonzalez-Longoria’s motion for leave to proceed IFP on appeal is DENIED, and his appeal is DISMISSED as frivolous.
See 5 TH C IR . R. 42.2.
IFP MOTION DENIED; APPEAL DISMISSED AS FRIVOLOUS.
#### TROWBRIDGE, INC., a Florida Corporation, Petitioner, v. William HATHAWAY and Lucille Hathaway, Respondents.

No. 39001.

Supreme Court of Florida.

March 18, 1970.

Rehearing Denied April 6, 1970.

*130George J. Baya, Miami, of Meyers & Mooney, Orlando, for petitioner.

J. Boyd DeLoach, New Smyrna Beach, for respondents.

PER CURIAM.

Because of an apparent conflict of decisions we issued a writ of certiorari to review the decision of .the District Court of Appeal in Trowbridge, Inc. v. Hathaway, 226 So.2d 35 (1st Dist.Ct.App.Fla.1969). After hearing oral argument and consideration of the record and briefs we find that the writ was improvidently issued and should be discharged. However, *compare*Crane Co. v. Fine, 221 So.2d 145 (Fla. 1969), where the record revealed that despite late service of the statutory forty-five day notice, Fla.Stat. § 84.061(2) (a) (1963), F.S.A., the owner still retained funds due the general contractor. The sub-contractor was allowed a lien against such undis-bursed funds. In the instant case there was no showing that such an undisbursed surplus existed. Hence, the lien claimant has not supported his claim with any showing that undisbursed funds were available to satisfy a claim of lien which had not been perfected under the cited statute. *See also*Stancil v. Gardner, 192 So.2d 340 (2d Dist.Ct.App.Fla. 1966).

The writ is discharged.

It is so ordered.

ERVIN, C. J., and ROBERTS, THOR-NAL, CARLTON and BOYD, JJ„ concur.
#### STATE of Florida ex rel. William A. HALLOWES, III, as State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellant, v. Roy REEVES, trading and doing business as Roy’s Five Points News Center, and a Quantity of Books, Appellee. STATE of Florida ex rel. William A. HALLOWES, III, as State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellant, v. Jacob M. RACHLEFF, trading and doing business as Jake’s News Stand, and a Quantity of Books, Appellee. STATE of Florida ex rel. William A. HALLOWES, III, as State Attorney for the Fourth Judicial Circuit of Florida, Appellant, v. Nick KOUROUPIS, trading and doing business as Nick’s Newsstand, and a Quantity of Books, Appellee.

Nos. 37731-37733.

Supreme Court of Florida.

July 2, 1969.

Earl Faircloth, Atty. Gen., Reeves Bowen, Asst. Atty. Gen., William A. Hallowes, III, State’s Atty. and Edward M. Booth, Asst. State’s Atty., for appellant.

Walter C. Shea, Jacksonville, for appel-lees.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing three cases consolidated here are direct appeals from decisions of the trial Court holding unconstitutional Section 847.011,. Florida Statutes, F.S.A., generally known as the Florida Obscene Literature Law. All questions presented here were decided by this Court adversely to the appellees in the cases of State v. Reese, 222 So.2d 732, filed May 7, 1969.

*286Accordingly the judgments m the cases sub judice are reversed and remanded on the authority of the above cited cases, and for further proceedings not inconsistent with same.

It is so ordered.

ROBERTS, Acting C. J., and DREW, CARLTON, ADKINS and BOYD, JJ., concur.
**Cranberries (ZCR-BB)
A product of the National Agricultural Statistics Service, Agricultural Statistics Board, U.S. Department of Agriculture**Description:**
**