alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 237 (Wednesday, December 10, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 65074]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-32242]



[[Page 65074]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Docket No. TM98-4-16-000]


National Fuel Gas Supply Corporation; Notice of Tariff Filing

December 4, 1997.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1997, National Fuel Gas Supply 
Corporation (National) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fourth revised Volume No. 1, Fifth Revised Revised Sheet No. 9. 
with a proposed effective date of December 1, 1997.
    National states that pursuant to Article II, Section 2, of the 
approved settlement at Docket Nos. RP94-367-000, et al., National is 
required to recalculate the maximum Interruptible Gathering (IG) rate 
monthly and to charge that rate on the first day of the following month 
if the result is an IG rate more than 2 cents above or below the IG 
rate as calculated under Section 1 of Article II. The recalculation 
produced an IG rate of 13.0 cents per dth.
    National further states that, as required by Article II. Section 4, 
National is filing a revised tariff sheet within 30 days of the 
effective date for the revised IG rate.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said 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 rules 211 or 214 of the Commission's Rules or 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Sections 385.211 or 385.214). All such 
motions or protests must be filed 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.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-32242 Filed 12-9-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
## Georgia Department of Natural Resources Environmental Protection Division • Air Protection Branch 4244 International Parkway • Suite 120 • Atlanta • Georgia 30354 404/363-7000 • Fax: 404/363-7100 Judson H. Turner, Director

CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND RULE ADOPTION
I do hereby certify that a public hearing was held on January 30, 2015, concerning proposed amendments to Georgia's State Implementation Plan (SIP) to incorporate revisions to Georgia's Rules for Air Quality, Chapter 391-3-1. A public notice was posted on GovDelivery.com, providing at least30 daysfor review and comments forthe revisions to the State Implementation Plan. I do further certify that the proposed rule amendmentswere adopted in accordance with the State ofGeorgia's proceduresfor rule adoption. A public hearingwas held on March 6, 2014 concerning the proposed rule amendments. The proposed rule amendments were adopted by the Board of Natural Resources on March 25, 2014; were filed with the Secretary of State's office on April14, 2014; and became effective on May 4, 2014. A public notice regarding the proposed rule amendmentswas posted on EPD's Environet website and on GovDelivery.com, providing at least 30 daysfor review and comments
.



# .

# ~/If,

# /?;

# li--**~~v{J** 

# cy ..**~W_;hlUVl** Notary Pub - K. Lynne Coll1er LYNNECOLLIER NOTARYPUBLIC ' FAYETTE COUNTY ' ( :§?TATE.qFGRGR61A £,.kllll-Y**CO~ f)\gJBSS~RCH**  6, 2017 Date J s W. Boylan, Ph.D., Manager Planning and Support Program

Date
Memo

Financing Marketable All Other Change in End-Of-Quarter

Need Borrowing Sources Total Cash Balance Cash Balance

Quarter Announcement Date (1) (2) (3) (4) = (2) + (3) (5) = (4) - (1) (6)

Oct - Dec

2005 Actual 97 93 6 98 1 37

Jan - Mar

2006 Actual 173 158 (14) 144 (28) 8

Apr - Jun

2006 Actual (137) (92) (7) (99) 38 46

Jul - Sep

2006 Actual 19 45 (19) 26 6 52

Oct - Dec

2006 Actual 70 42 6 48 (21) 31

Jan - Mar January 29, 2007 162 141 1 141 (21) 10

2007 Actual 159 126 9 134 (25) 6

Memo: Forecast Revision (3) (15) 8 (7) (4) (4)

Apr - Jun January 29, 2007 (156) (130) (7) (136) 20 30

2007 April 30, 2007 (162) (145) 6 (138) 24 30

Memo: Forecast Revision (6) (15) 13 (2) 4 0

Jul - Sep January 29, 2007 23 47 (9) 38 15 45

2007 April 30, 2007 18 43 (10) 33 15 45

Memo: Forecast Revision (5) (4) (1) (5) 0 0

Notes: All data reported on a cash basis

Sources and Uses Reconciliation Table

Financing
EXHIBIT
32.2
 CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO
 18 U.S.C.
§ 1350,
 AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
 SECTION
906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
 
 In
connection with the Quarterly Report of MEMS USA, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-QSB for the period ended March 31, 2005 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), James A. Latty and
Richard W. York, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to
Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to 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.
 
 May 23,
2005
 
 /s/
 
 James A.
Latty,
 President
 
 
 May 23,
2005
 
 /s/
 
 Richard
W. York,
 Chief
Financial Officer
#### Michael HUTCHISON et al., Appellants, v. INTERNATIONAL PAPER COMPANY, a foreign corporation, Appellee.

No. Q-317.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, First District.

Nov. 7, 1972.

Rehearing Denied Dec. 21, 1972.

Jerry W. Gerde, of Davenport, Johnston & Harris, Panama City, for appellants.

Lynn C. Higby, of Isler, Welch, Smith, Higby & Brown, Panama City, for appel-lee.

PER CURIAM.

This cause having been orally argued before the Court, the briefs and record on appeal having been read and given full consideration, and the appellants having failed to demonstrate reversible error, the judgment of the lower court appealed from herein is affirmed.

SPECTOR, C. J., and CARROLL, DONALD K., and RAWLS, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                                        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM CONE MILLS
CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED CONDENSED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS DATED JULY 2, 2000, AND
IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK>                         0000023304
<NAME>                        CONE MILLS CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUL-02-2000
<CASH>                                         2,681
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  60,243
<ALLOWANCES>                                   5,050
<INVENTORY>                                    115,783
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               183,653
<PP&E>                                         460,822
<DEPRECIATION>                                 250,339
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 482,229
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          96,054
<BONDS>                                        185,120
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    35,770
<COMMON>                                       2,549
<OTHER-SE>                                     117,922
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   482,229
<SALES>                                        303,226
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               303,226
<CGS>                                          266,533
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  292,712
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               (332)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             (10,810)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                36
<INCOME-TAX>                                   12
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            1,249
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   1,249
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (0.02)


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.2





CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, John Adamovich, Jr., Chief Financial Officer of Aeroflex Holding Corp., hereby certify that the Form 10-K of Aeroflex Holding Corp. for the period ended June 30, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the information contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Aeroflex Holding Corp.





/s/ John Adamovich, Jr.Name:  John Adamovich, Jr.Date:  August 31, 2011





A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Aeroflex Holding Corp. and will be retained by Aeroflex Holding Corp. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                           6,450
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   66,071
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,465
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                72,283
<PP&E>                                           9,832
<DEPRECIATION>                                   5,639
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  93,034
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           16,224
<BONDS>                                          1,432
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         1,802
<OTHER-SE>                                      71,980
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    93,034
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                69,749
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   47,899
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                14,805
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                (35)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,080
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,998
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              4,082
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,082
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.24
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.24
        

</TABLE>
#### THE FLORIDA BAR, Complainant, v. Sidney KATES, Respondent.

No. 53643.

Supreme Court of Florida.

June 30, 1978.

John A. Weiss, Asst. Staff Counsel, Tallahassee, for complainant.

No appearance for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

In this disciplinary proceeding the referee has filed with the Court his report recommending that respondent be found guilty of professional misconduct, suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, and thereafter placed on probation for an additional period of six months under prescribed terms. Neither the Bar nor respondent has filed a petition for review.

We have examined the record and conclude that the referee’s findings are amply supported by clear and convincing evidence. In accordance with Integration Rule 11.-09(3)(f), we therefore approve and adopt the disciplinary recommendations of the referee.* Respondent is hereby suspended from the practice of law for a period of ninety days, to be followed by supervised *777probation for six months during which time respondent shall file monthly with staff counsel of The Florida Bar a caseload report showing the names and current status of matters which respondent has agreed to undertake on behalf of clients, including information as to cases disposed of during the month. Respondent is further directed to pay the costs of these proceedings in the amount of $449.50.

It is so ordered.

OVERTON, C. J., and ADKINS, ENGLAND, SUNDBERG, HATCHETT and ALDERMAN, JJ., concur.

BOYD, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with an opinion.

*

 The referee’s recommended procedure for the supervised probation, however, is slightly modified as reflected in this opinion.

BOYD, Justice,

concurring in part and dissenting in part.

I concur in respondent’s ninety-day suspension from the practice of law, but I dissent to the six month supervised probation upon resumption of his practice.
[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 195 (Wednesday, October 8, 1997)]
[Notices]
[Page 52599]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-26572]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION


Issuer Delisting; Notice of Application to Withdraw From Listing 
and Registration; (Anicom, Inc., Common Stock, $.001 Par Value) File 
No. 1-13642

October 1, 1997.
    Anicom, Inc. (``Company'') has filed an application with the 
Securities and Exchange Commission (``Commission''), pursuant to 
Section 12(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (``Act'') and Rule 
12d2-2(d) promulgated thereunder, to withdraw the above specified 
security (``Security'') from listing and registration on the Chicago 
Stock Exchange, Inc. (``CHX'' or ``Exchange'').
    The reasons cited in the application for withdrawing the Security 
from listing and registration include the following:
    The Board of Directors of the Company believes that maintenance of 
the dual listing on both the Chicago Stock Exchange and the Nasdaq 
National Market is not in the best interests of the Company's 
stockholders. No trading of the Company's Security has taken place on 
the CHX since May 1995. All of the trading activity in the Security has 
taken place on the Nasdaq National Market. Accordingly, the Board of 
Directors believes that the costs of maintaining a listing on the CHX 
do not justify the Company's continued listing on the CHX given the 
lack of trading on the Exchange.
    By letter dated September 10, 1997, the CHX states that the Company 
has complied with the Exchange's rules relating to the delisting of the 
Company's Security.
    Any interested person may, on or before October 23, 1997, submit by 
letter to the Secretary of the Securities and Exchange Commission, 450 
Fifth Street, NW., Washington, DC 20549, facts bearing upon whether the 
application has been made in accordance with the rules of the exchange 
and what terms, if any, should be imposed by the Commission for the 
protection of investors. The Commission, based on the information 
submitted to it, will issue an order granting the application after the 
date mentioned above, unless the Commission determines to order a 
hearing on the matter.

    For the Commission, by the Division of Market Regulation, 
pursuant to delegated authority.
Jonathan G. Katz,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 97-26572 Filed 10-7-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8010-01-M
Exhibit 10.2


 


AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE


 


THIS
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE PROMISSORY NOTE (this “Agreement”), dated as of August 18, 2021, by and
between Integrated Energy Transition Acquisition Corp., a Delaware corporation (the “Maker”) and Integrated
Energy Partners, LLC (the “Payee”).


 


WHEREAS,
Maker executed and delivered a Promissory Note dated as of October 2, 2020 to Payee in the original principal amount of three hundred
thousand dollars ($300,000) (the “Promissory Note”); and


 


WHEREAS,
Maker and Payee desire to amend the Promissory Note as set forth herein.


 


NOW,
THEREFORE, for other good and valuable consideration, the Maker and Payee hereby agree as follows:


 


		1.	All capitalized terms not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the
Promissory Note.
		2.	Paragraph 1 of the Promissory Note is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:



 


Principal.
The entire unpaid principal balance of this Note shall be payable on the earlier of: (i) March 31, 2022 or (ii) the date
on which Maker consummates an initial public offering of its securities (such earlier date, the “Maturity Date”). The
principal balance may be prepaid at any time. Under no circumstances shall any individual, including but not limited to any officer, director,
employee or stockholder of the Maker, be obligated personally for any obligations or liabilities of the Maker hereunder.


 


		3.	Except as specifically modified and amended herein, all other terms, conditions and covenants contained
in the Promissory Note shall remain in full force and effect.
		4.	This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Maker and Payee and their respective
successors and assigns.
		5.	This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of Delaware, without regard
to conflict of law provisions thereof.



 


[signature page follows]


 




     


     


    


 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Maker has caused this Agreement
to be duly executed as of the day and year first above written.


 


	 	INTEGRATED ENERGY TRANSITION
    ACQUISITION CORP.
	 	 
	 	 
	 	/s/ Christopher
    J. Close
	 	Name: Christopher J. Close
	 	Title: Chief Financial Officer




 


 


[Signature
Page to Amendment No. 1 to the Promissory Note]
US TREASURY FINANCING SCHEDULE FOR 3rd QUARTER 2015

BILLIONS OF DOLLARS

ANNOUNCEMENT AUCTION SETTLEMENT OFFERED MATURING NEW

ISSUE DATE DATE DATE AMOUNT AMOUNT MONEY

4-WK 3-MO 6-MO 12-MO

4-WEEK AND 6/25 6/29 7/2 30.00 24.00 24.00 83.00 -5.00

3&6&12 MO BILLS 7/2 7/6 7/9 30.00 24.00 24.00 78.00 0.00

7/9 7/13 7/16 30.00 24.00 24.00 78.00 0.00

7/16 7/20 7/23 30.00 24.00 24.00 25.00 103.00 0.00

7/23 7/27 7/30 30.00 24.00 24.00 78.00 0.00

7/30 8/3 8/6 25.00 22.00 22.00 80.00 -11.00

8/6 8/10 8/13 25.00 22.00 22.00 80.00 -11.00

8/13 8/17 8/20 20.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 105.00 -18.00

8/20 8/24 8/27 20.00 20.00 22.00 80.00 -18.00

8/27 8/31 9/3 20.00 20.00 22.00 75.00 -13.00

9/3 9/7 9/10 20.00 20.00 22.00 75.00 -13.00

9/10 9/14 9/17 20.00 20.00 22.00 25.00 95.00 -8.00

9/17 9/21 9/24 20.00 20.00 22.00 68.00 -6.00

975.00 1078.00 -103.00

CASH MANAGEMENT BILLS

11-DAY BILL 8/24 9/2 9/5 15.00 15.00 0.00

Matures 9/16

CMB Funds: 0.00

COUPONS

CHANGE

3-year Note 7/2 7/7 7/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 7/2 7/8 7/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 7/2 7/9 7/15 13.00 0.00 52.43 5.57

10-year TIPS 7/16 7/23 7/31 15.00 0.00

2-year note 7/23 7/28 7/31 26.00 0.00

2-year FRN 7/23 7/29 7/31 15.00 0.00

5-year note 7/23 7/29 7/31 35.00 0.00

7-year note 7/23 7/30 7/31 29.00 0.00 73.21 46.79

3-year Note 8/5 8/11 8/17 24.00 0.00

10-year Note 8/5 8/12 8/17 24.00 0.00

30-year Bond 8/5 8/13 8/17 16.00 0.00 68.49 -4.49

5-year TIPS ® 8/13 8/20 8/31 16.00 0.00

2-year note 8/20 8/25 8/31 26.00 0.00

2-year FRN ® 8/20 8/26 8/31 13.00 0.00

5-year note 8/20 8/26 8/31 35.00 0.00

7-year note 8/20 8/27 8/31 29.00 0.00 70.88 48.12

3-year Note 9/3 9/8 9/15 24.00 0.00

10-year Note ® 9/3 9/9 9/15 21.00 0.00

30-year Bond ® 9/3 9/10 9/15 13.00 0.00 32.00 26.00

10-year TIPS ® 9/10 9/17 9/30 13.00 0.00

2-year note 9/17 9/22 9/30 26.00 0.00
2-year FRN® 9/17 9/23 9/25 13.00 0.00

5-year note 9/17 9/23 9/30 35.00 0.00

7-year note 9/17 9/24 9/30 29.00 0.00 69.10 46.90

535.00 366.12 168.88

Estimates are italicized. R = Reopening

NET CASH RAISED THIS QUARTER: 66
#### Joseph BRADLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 77-703.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

March 14, 1978.

Rehearing Denied April 10, 1978.

Louis M. Silber of Cone, Owen, Wagner, Nugent, Johnson, & McKeown, P. A., West Palm Beach, for appellant.

Robert L. Shevin, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, Richard P. Zaretsky, and Glenn H. Mitchell, Asst. Attys. Gen., West Palm Beach, for appellee.

LETTS, Judge.

Appellant pled nolo contendere to a robbery charge reserving his right to appeal the denial of his (1) motion to suppress the evidence seized, (2) motion to suppress the out of, and in, court identifications and (3) *850his motion to suppress his confession. We find no merit on appeal concerning the trial judge’s ruling on the first and second motions, but believe the third should have been granted. We reverse.

Without lengthy discourse, we would reiterate our holding in *Jarriel v. State,*317 So.2d 141 (Fla. 4th DCA 1975) to the effect that an accused may not be improperly urged by direct or implied promises to make a statement, in violation of the basic tenet of law that a confessing defendant should be entirely free from the influence of hope or fear. *Jarriel, supra,*at 142. In so restating, we do not attempt to depart in any way from the holding in *Paramore v. State,*229 So.2d 855 (Fla.1969) wherein our Supreme Court held, inter alia, that a confession is not rendered inadmissible merely because it is induced by deception or because the accused is told it will be easier on him if he tells the truth.

In the case at bar, we perceive more than a suggestion that it would, or might, go easier or better for the accused if he confessed. Here the accused testified, in essence, that his interrogator stated that he could get him a “deal” which would result in a lighter sentence from the judge. This is more than a commitment from the police to do whatever they can to make it easier for the accused; this is, at the very least, a promise to deliver some form of relief in return for the confession.

We have been asked to review such obviously self serving testimony before and have often left such to be resolved by the trier of the fact where police witnesses have taken the stand and denied the making of any promise to deliver a “deal” as an accomplishable certainty. However, no such rebuttal was offered here. On the contrary, the assistant state attorney conceded that the officer may have “promised [the accused] things” and that he (the assistant state’s attorney) was “not so sure that is not true, knowing [the] detective . as I do and it’s a distress to me that I have to make that statement in open court.”

Such candor is refreshing and commendable, because all attorneys are, first and foremost, officers of the court. By contrast, the detective about whom the remarks were made, should be ashamed to be thus spoken of by a police prosecutor.

WE REVERSE AND REMAND FOR A NEW TRIAL.

ALDERMAN, C. J., and MOORE, J., concur.