alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
November 18, 1954 

R. Stevenson, Jr. Opinion No. S-147 

Administrator 

Texas Liquor Control Board 

P. o. Box 56 

Austin 61, Texas 

Dear Mr. Stevenson: 

Re: Subpoena power of Texas 

Liquor Control Board under Section 7 of Article 

666, Vernon's Penal Code, 

Your recent letter asks this office for an opinion on 

the following question: 

"We desire your valued opinion as to whether or 

not this Department under Section 7 of Article 666, 

Penal Code of Texas, has the authority to issue a 

subpoena-to compel the production of the personal 

records and accounts of all officers and atoakholdera of a corporation holding a permit or iicense 

issued by the Texas Liquor Control Board. 

Section 7, supra, provides, in part: 

"The Board, the Administrator and any inspector 

under the direction of the Board, shall for the purposes contemplated by this Act, have power to issue 

subpoenas, compel the attendance of witnesses, administer oaths, certify to official acts, take depositions within or without the State of Texas, as now 

provided by law, and compel the production of pertinent books, accounts, records, documents, and testimong." (Emphasis added.) 

In the light of the quoted statutory provision, your 

question is answered in the affirmative, qualified to the extent 

that the personal records and accounts of all officers and atockholders of a corporation holding a permit or license issued by 

the Board are pertinent to the matters under investigation. The 

subpoena should be specific in the description of the records 

and accounts wanted, by date, title, substance, or the eubject 

to which they relate. Ex Parte Gould, 60 Tex. Crlm. 442, 132 

S.W. 364 (1910). 
Hon. Coke R. Stevenson, Jr., page 2 (S-147) 

SUNMARY 

The Texas Liquor Control Board may 

issue a subpoena to compel the production 

of the personal records and accounts of 

all officers and stockholders of a corporation holding a permit or license Issued 

by the Board, provided such personal records 

and accounts are pertinent to the matters 

under investigation and the subpoena is 

specific in the description of the records 

and accounts wanted, by date, title, substance, or the subject to which they relate. 

Art. 666, Sec. 7, V.P.C., and Ex Parte Gould, 

60 Tex. Grim. 442, 132 S.W. 364 (1910). 

APPROVED: Yours very truly, 

Rudy 0. Rice JOHN BEN SREPPERD 

State Affairs Division ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

J.'A.'Amis, Jr. 

Reviewer 

W. V. Geppert 

Reviewer 

Robert S. Trotti 

First Assistant 

John Ben Shepperd 

Attorney General 

HW/rt 

By&r+ 

Horace Wimberly 

Assistant
#### John Burns, Respondent, v Anthony Mastroianni, Appellant.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant appeals from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Tanenbaum, J.), entered August 25, 1989, which, upon a motion for judgment as a matter of law made at the close of evidence on the issue of liability, and *755upon a jury verdict as to damages, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sum of $20,000.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed, with costs.

This action arises out of a collision on Carlton Avenue in the Town of Islip, involving a northbound bicycle operated by the plaintiff John Burns, and a left-turning southbound automobile driven by William Miller. The sole issue on appeal is the propriety of the trial court’s decision to grant the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability.

It is well established that the standard to be applied in deciding a motion for judgment as a matter of law is "whether the trial court could find that by no rational process could the trier of fact base a finding in favor of the party of opposing the motion” *(Grillias v D’Arrigo Bros. Co.,*144 AD2d 638; *Dooley v Skodnek,*138 AD2d 102). Applying this standard to the case at bar, we find upon our review of the record that the Supreme Court properly granted the plaintiff’s motion for judgment as a matter of law. Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1141 provides that a left-turning vehicle must yield the right-of-way to a vehicle approaching from the opposite direction. Since Miller admitted that he did not see the plaintiff’s bicycle approaching from the opposite direction, he was clearly negligent in failing to see "that which under the facts and circumstances he should have seen by the proper use of his senses” *(Hernandez v Joseph,*143 AD2d 632; *Lester v Jolicofur,*120 AD2d 574; *Kiernan v Edwards,*97 AD2d 750). Moreover, if Miller saw but disregarded the plaintiff on his bicycle, he was negligent in trying to cross in front of the plaintiff when it was hazardous to do so *(see, Hernandez v Joseph, supra; Lester v Jolicofur, supra).*Finally, we note that no evidence was adduced at trial which indicates that any possible negligence on the part of the plaintiff contributed to the accident. Thompson, J. P., Brown, Eiber and Harwood, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 07-4240

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellee, 

 v. 

HERBERT LEWIS TURNER, 

 Defendant - Appellant. 

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western 

District of Virginia, at Harrisonburg. Samuel G. Wilson, 

District Judge. (5:01-cr-30062-sgw) 

Submitted: March 18, 2009 Decided: April 15, 2009 

Before TRAXLER and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge. 

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Craig W. Sampson, BARNES & DIEHL, PC, Chesterfield, Virginia, 

for Appellant. Nancy Spodick Healey, Assistant United States 

Attorney, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
PER CURIAM: 

 Herbert Lewis Turner seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order revoking his supervised release and sentencing him 

to eighteen months’ imprisonment, followed by an additional 

eighteen-month term of supervised release. The district court 

entered judgment on January 18, 2007. Turner filed a notice of 

appeal on February 20, 2007.1 Because Turner failed to file a 

timely notice of appeal,2 we remanded the case to the district 

court for the limited purpose of determining whether Turner had 

shown excusable neglect or good cause to warrant an extension of 

time to file a notice of appeal. 

 Despite an order from the district court directing 

Turner to submit a response explaining the reason he failed to 

file a timely notice of appeal, Turner filed no explanation. 

The court accordingly found that Turner failed to demonstrate 

excusable neglect or good cause. See United States v. Turner, 

 1

 The envelope in which the notice was mailed was postmarked 

February 20, 2007. Under the “mailbox rule” of Houston v. Lack, 

487 U.S. 266 (1988), a document is deemed filed by a prisoner 

when it is delivered to prison officials for mailing. 

2

 In criminal cases, the defendant must file the notice of 

appeal within ten days after the entry of judgment. Fed. R. 

App. P. 4(b)(1)(A). With or without a motion, upon a showing of 

excusable neglect or good cause, the district court may grant an 

extension of up to thirty days to file a notice of appeal. Fed. 

R. App. P. 4(b)(4); United States v. Reyes, 759 F.2d 351, 353 

(4th Cir. 1985). 

2 
3 

No. 5:01-cr-30062-sgw (W.D. Va. Jan. 13, 2009). The matter is 

now before this court for final disposition. In light of 

Turner’s failure to file a timely notice of appeal and the 

district court’s reasonable determination that Turner failed to 

demonstrate excusable neglect or good cause for his late appeal, 

we dismiss the appeal as untimely. 

 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and 

legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials 

before the court and argument would not aid the decisional 

process. 

DISMISSED
Final Listing of Questionnaire Files for Steam Electric Rulemaking Record

Plant ID 06436

Removed 

from Public 

(Non-CBI) 

Docket1

Copyright 

Flag2

File Name Description

x 06436\06436_Checklist.xls EPA Technical Review Checklist Workbook

06436\06436_Completeness_Checklist.xls EPA Completeness Review Checklist

06436\06436_HardcopyLog.doc EPA log of hardcopy documents submitted

x 06436\06436_Part A.xls Plant submitted survey file

06436\Certification Statement_06436.pdf Plant Certification Statement

1

 Final reviewed survey responses are located in the Steam Electric Technical Questionnaire Database . 

2

 Copyright documents are available from the docket.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Project Nos. 14275-000, 14279-000, 14282-000]

                    On February 28, 2012, the Commission held a drawing to determine priority between three competing preliminary permit applications with identical filing times. In the event that the Commission concludes that none of the applicants' plans are better adapted than the other                           ( print page 13317)                        to develop, conserve, and utilize in the public interest the water resources of the region at issue, the priority established by this drawing will serve as the tiebreaker. Based on the drawing, the order of priority is as follows:                

1. FFP Project 91, LLC: Project No. 14275-000.

2. Riverbank Hydro No. 23, LLC: Project No. 14279-000.

3. Lock+ Hydro Friends Fund III: Project No. 14282-000.

Dated: February 29, 2012.

Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2012-5347 Filed 3-5-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
**CERTIFICATIONS**

 

I, Garth Likes, certify that:

1.            I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Cyplasin Biomedical Ltd.;

2.            Based on my knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

3.            Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4.             I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and I have:

a)             designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)            evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’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 quarterly report based on such evaluation; and

c)             disclosed in this quarterly report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

5.             I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

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 small business issuer’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 small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date: September 13, 2007

 

/s/ Garth Likes

Garth Likes

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer, Principal Financial Officer

and Principal Accounting Officer)

 

 

CW1412863.1
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 1905 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children’s footwear covering 

the ankle. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 26, 2009 

Mr. ROBERTS introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on certain children’s 

footwear covering the ankle. 

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

3 SECTION 1. CERTAIN CHILDREN’S FOOTWEAR COVERING 

4 THE ANKLE. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 1905 IS

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Footwear with outer soles 

and uppers of rubber or plastics, covering the ankle, the 

foregoing for persons other 

than men or women (provided 

for in subheading 

6402.91.40) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
#### Daniel B. Grossman, Inc., Appellant, v Auer’s Van & Express Co., Inc., et al., Respondents.

Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Karla Moskowitz, J.), entered on or about June 21, 1990, which granted the motion by defendant Auer’s Van & Express Co., Inc., ("Auer’s”) for summary judgment *214pursuant to CPLR 3212, dismissing the complaint as against defendant Auer’s, and which severed and continued the action as against the remaining defendants, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Plaintiff, a New York corporation engaged in the purchase and sale of objects of art, alleges conspiracy by the defendants to defraud the plaintiff by requiring it to illegally and improperly pay defendant Auer’s a disproportionate share of the moving, packing and storage charges accrued by defendant Auer’s with respect to certain pieces of artwork purchased by the plaintiff. The verified complaint further alleges that a general release executed by the plaintiff in favor of defendant Auer’s for its packing, moving and storage services was procured by means of economic duress.

Upon examination of the record, we find, as did the IAS court, that neither defendant Auer’s refusal to release the artwork in question until it received payment for its services, nor its procurement of plaintiff’s general release, constituted economic duress. The plaintiff, in opposing summary judgment, failed to proffer probative, admissible and evidentiary facts establishing that defendant Auer’s wrongfully threatened to remain in possession of the artwork unless plaintiff executed and delivered the general release *(Edison Stone Corp. v 42nd St. Dev. Corp.,*145 AD2d 249, 254), or that the ordinary remedy of an action for breach of contract would not adequately redress the alleged wrong *(Austin Instrument v Loral Corp.,*29 NY2d 124, 131; *cf., Sosnoff v Carter,*165 AD2d 486).

In any event, the record reveals that the execution of the general release by the plaintiff was the product of a reasonable business decision negotiated in good faith between the parties and their attorneys *(Welford Reality v Brause,*93 AD2d 758, 759, *affd*60 NY2d 623) as demonstrated by plaintiff’s repeated failure to seek judicial redress before executing the general release *(Austin Instrument v Loral Corp., supra,*at 133).

We have considered plaintiff’s remaining claims and find them to be without merit. Concur—Carro, J. P., Milonas, Asch, Kassal and Rubin, JJ.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY 

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE 

ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498 

 OFFICE OF 

AIR AND RADIATION 

 July 30, 2012 

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Enhanced Protective Glass Automotive Association Meeting with EPA and NHTSA 

Regarding Proposal for 2017-2025 Light-Duty (LD) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Standards 

FROM: Arvon L. Mitcham, Program Manager/Engineer 

TO: EPA Docket #EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799 

This memo documents meetings held on April 19, 2012 between representatives of Enhanced 

Protective Glass Automotive Association (EPGAA), EPA, and NHTSA to discuss EPGAA’s 

comments on the LD GHG proposed rule. The meeting attendees included the following: 

EPGAA: Robert Hurley (The Accord Group), Robert Vandal (Guardian), Aaron Singer (AGC), 

Mukesh Rustagi (PGW) 

EPA: Ed Nam, Arvon Mitcham, Brian Nelson, Tad Wysor 

 

NHTSA: Greg Powell, Coralie Cooper (Volpe Center) 

The topics discussed included off-cycle credits, glazing technology, and metallic glazing’s 

impact on radio frequency attenuation, and current status of metallic glazing in the automotive 

industry. Separate meeting materials were prepared and authorized for release by EPGAA. All 

materials are in the docket (one attachment here, the others separately). 
Attachment 

Vehicles Equipped with Laminated Glass as either standard or optional equipment 

January, 2009 

Standard

Model Glass Position

Bentley Continental GT Four doors 

Bentley Continental Flying Spur Four doors 

Buick Enclave Front doors 

Buick LaCrosse (2010 model) Front doors 

Buick LaCrosse (current) Front doors 

Buick Lucerne Four doors 

Cadillac STS Front doors 

Cadillac DTS Four doors 

Cadillac SRX (2010) Front doors 

Chevy Equinox (2010) Front doors 

Chevy Malibu (acoustic) Front doors 

Ferrari Superamerica Roof 

Ford Taurus (2010) (acoustic) Front doors 

Hyundai Genesis (acoustic) Front doors 

Jaguar XJ 

Lamborghini Murcielago 

Lexus LX 570 – (acoustic) Front doors 

Lexus RX 350 (2010) (acoustic) Front doors 

Lexus GS 450h Front doors 

Lexus LS 600h Front doors 

Lincoln MKS Front doors 

Mercedes CL 500 Front door 

Mercedes CL 550 Front door 

Mercedes S-Class (acoustic) All glass 

Mercedes R-Class 

Mercedes S 400h (acoustic) All glass 

Mercedes SL 650 AMG Black (acoustic) All glass 

Mercedes Maybach (57 &62) (acoustic) All glass 

Infiniti QX56 Front doors 

Porsche 911 Targa Roof 

Porsche GT 

Rolls Royce Phantom Four doors 

Saab 9-4X (2010) Front doors 

Saturn Aura (acoustic) Front doors 
Optional

Model Glass Position

Audi A8L Four doors 

BMW 7 Series Four doors 

Ford Flex Limited Roof and front doors 

Ford Mustang Roof 

Land Rover LR3 Roof 

Land Rover Range Rover Sport Front doors 

Land Rover Range Rover Front doors 

Lexus LS 460 (acoustic) Front doors 

Maserati Quatroporte 

Mercedes E-Class Front doors 

Mercedes G-Class Front doors 

Mercedes M-Class Front doors 

Porsche Carrera Roof 

Porsche Cayenne Four doors, roof 

Subaru Forrester Roof 

Subaru Outback Roof 

Volkswagen Toureg Four doors 

Volvo S-80 Four doors, quarter window
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 January 22, 2016

Order 

Clerk

January 22, 2016

150703(90)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

SC: 150703

v COA: 315247

Wayne CC: 12-009230-FC

RONALD JOHNSON,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of plaintiff-appellee to extend the Courtordered time for filing a supplemental answer to the application for leave to appeal is 

GRANTED. The supplemental answer will be accepted as timely filed if submitted on or 

before February 18, 2016.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Thomas W. Porcella, Appellant.

Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County (Thorp, *576J.), rendered October 31, 1988, convicting him of assault in the first degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence.

Ordered that the judgment is affirmed.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf., People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, P. J., Brown, Sullivan, Harwood and Miller, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 32(i)

In connection with the report on Form 10-QSB of Mistral Ventures, Inc. for the quarterly period ended March 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (Report), I, John Xinos, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

|(1) |  | This Report complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

|(2) |  | The information contained in this Report fairly represents, in all material respects, the financial condition of the small business issuer at the end of the period covered by this Report and results of operations of the small business issuer for the period covered by this Report.
|--- |  | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

/s/ John Xinos

John Xinos

Chief Executive Officer

May 14, 2007

This certification accompanies this Report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, be deemed filed by the small business issuer for the purposes of §18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporated by reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or after the date of this Report), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in such filing.

A signed original of this written statement required by §906 has been provided to the small business issuer and will be retained by the small business issuer and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.

---