alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 10 (Tuesday, January 17, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 2308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-676]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection


Approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as a Commercial 
Gauger

AGENCY: U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Department of Homeland 
Security.

ACTION: Notice of approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as a 
commercial gauger.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to 19 CFR 151.13, Altol 
Petroleum Product Service, Calle Gregorio Ledesma HN-55 Urb. Levittown, 
Toa Baja, PR 00949, has been approved to gauge petroleum, petroleum 
products, organic chemicals and vegetable oils for customs purposes, in 
accordance with the provisions of 19 CFR 151.13. Anyone wishing to 
employ this entity to conduct gauger services should request and 
receive written assurances from the entity that it is approved by the 
U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct the specific gauger 
service requested. Alternatively, inquiries regarding the specific 
gauger service this entity is approved to perform may be directed to 
the U.S. Customs and Border Protection by calling (202) 344-1060. The 
inquiry may also be sent to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#2a49485a04464b48425b6a4e4259044d455c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="385b5a481654595a5049785c504b165f574e">[email protected]</span></a>. Please reference the Web 
site listed below for a complete listing of CBP approved gaugers and 
accredited laboratories: http://cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/operations_support/labs_scientific_svcs/commercial_gaugers/.

DATES: The approval of Altol Petroleum Product Service, as commercial 
gauger became effective on February 26, 2010. The next triennial 
inspection date will be scheduled for February 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen Cassata, Laboratories and 
Scientific Services, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 1300 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Suite 1500N, Washington, DC 20229, (202) 344-
1060.

    Dated: December 9, 2011.
Ira S. Reese,
Executive Director Laboratories and Scientific Services.
[FR Doc. 2012-676 Filed 1-13-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9111-14-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Edward L. FARRAR, Appellant, v. Allen E. ARTHUR, Jr., et al., Appellees.

No. 88-2235.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fifth District.

June 15, 1989.

Charles E. Davis of Fishback, Davis, Dominick, Bennett & Ardaman, Orlando, for appellant.

Kimberly A. Ashby and Carol D. Motes of Maguire, Voorhis & Wells, P.A., Orlando, for appellees.

DAUKSCH, Judge.

This is an appeal from a summary judgment in a contract and negligence action. We reverse.

It is alleged and there is evidence to support the fact that Arthur was hired to design and, to a limited extent, supervise the construction of a building for Dr. Far-rar. Dr. Farrar and his expert witness testified by affidavit and deposition that the building was not constructed in accordance with the plans and that defects caused leaks and gave rise to other claims for damages. Dr. Farrar says that if architect Arthur had correctly supervised construction of the building then it would have been built in accordance with the plans and no defects and resultant injuries would have occurred. Arthur says that because Dr. Farrar’s expert said he had “no criticism” of his work he is entitled to a summary judgment. However, the expert said he was not hired to determine whether the architect was at fault and that he did not “... have enough information to render an opinion concerning whether or not the services rendered by Mr. Arthur ... contributed in any way to the leaks ...” Arthur presented no expert or other evidence, other than his own statement, to refute the statements of Dr. Farrar and his witness.

There are disputed issues of material fact to be resolved so summary judgment was improper. *Holl v. Talcott,*191 So.2d 40 (Fla.1966). There is evidence that the building was not built in accordance with the plans and specifications, that Arthur had a duty to assure that the building was built according to the plans, that he breached that duty and that Farrar suffered injury. The disputed evidence must be resolved by trial.

REVERSED and REMANDED.

SHARP, C.J., and COBB, J., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              SEP-30-1996
<PERIOD-START>                                 OCT-01-1995
<PERIOD-END>                                   SEP-30-1996
<CASH>                                          9,377
<SECURITIES>                                    6,663
<RECEIVABLES>                                   4,515
<ALLOWANCES>                                      340
<INVENTORY>                                     6,475
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               27,244
<PP&E>                                         15,726
<DEPRECIATION>                                  8,366
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 35,246
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           9,606
<BONDS>                                         1,566
<COMMON>                                           87
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<OTHER-SE>                                     23,987
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   24,074
<SALES>                                        35,350
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               36,806
<CGS>                                          18,008
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  18,008
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               14,498
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                687
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 4,761
<INCOME-TAX>                                      372
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             4,389
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                    4,389
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    0.47
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0.47
        


</TABLE>
#### John HAYNES, Jr., et al. v. Richard E. CALHOUN.

No. 86-CC-2413.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 9, 1987.

In re Calhoun, Richard E.; applying for writ of certiorari and/or review; Parish of Caddo, 1st Judicial District Court, Div. “D”, No. 323400; to the Court of Appeal, Second Circuit, No. 18744-CW.

Denied.
302 CERTIFICATION

I, W. Ross C. Corace, certify that:

         1. I have reviewed the quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of
MailTec, Inc.;

         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 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented
in this report;

         4.  I am responsible for establishing and maintaining
disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules
12a-14) and internal controls over financial reporting (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:

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

      b) evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure
controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing
date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

      c)  presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the
effectiveness  of the disclosure  controls and procedures based on my
evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

         5.  I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to
the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant'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 registrant's ability to
record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

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

Date: March 21, 2006                /s/W. Ross C. Corace
                                   ----------------------------
                                   W. Ross C. Corace
                                   Chief Executive Officer
                                   Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 35.1

SERVICER COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

American Express Travel Related Services
Company, Inc.

American Express Credit Account Master Trust

Reporting Period January 1, 2011 to December 31, 2011

The undersigned, a duly authorized representative of American Express Travel Related Services Company, Inc. (TRS), as Servicer pursuant to the American Express Credit Account Master Trust (the
Trust) Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of May 16, 1996, as amended and restated as of January 1, 2006, as amended by the First Amendment to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of December 17, 2007, as
amended by the Second Amendment to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 24, 2008, as amended by the Third Amendment to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of February 24, 2009, and as amended by the Fourth
Amendment to the Pooling and Servicing Agreement, dated as of October 7, 2010 (as so amended and restated and as otherwise amended from time to time, the Agreement), among American Express Receivables Financing Corporation II,
American Express Receivables Financing Corporation III LLC, and American Express Receivables Financing Corporation IV LLC, as transferors, TRS, as servicer, and The Bank of New York Mellon (formerly The Bank of New York), as trustee and securities
intermediary (the Trustee), does hereby certify that:

1. TRS is Servicer under the Agreement.

2. The undersigned is duly authorized as required pursuant to the Agreement to execute and deliver this Certificate.

3. A review of the Servicers activities during the reporting period and of its performance under the Agreement has been made under my supervision.

4. To the best of my knowledge, based on such review, the Servicer has fulfilled all of its obligations under the Agreement in all material
respects throughout the reporting period.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned has duly executed this Certificate this
20thday of March, 2012.



|                                                       |  |                     
|------------------------------------------------------ |  | --------------------
|AMERICAN EXPRESS TRAVEL RELATED SERVICES COMPANY, INC.
|                                                       | 
|By:                                                    |  | /s/ Beth M. Schaefer
|Name:                                                  |  | Beth M. Schaefer    
|Title:                                                 |  | Vice President
**Exhibit 13.2**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OR EQUIVALENTPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002(SUBSECTIONS (a) AND (b) OF SECTION 1350,CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 UNITED STATES CODE)**

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections(a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), theundersigned officer of DRAXIS Health Inc., a corporation incorporated under thelaws of Canada (the “Company”), hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that:

The Annual Report of Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2006(the “Report”) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of section13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information containedin the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company.
| Dated: August 15, 2007 |                    |
|------------------------|-------------------------|
|                   | /s/ Mark Oleksiw        |
|                   | Mark Oleksiw            |
|                   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant tosection 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) ofsection 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not beingfiled as part of the Report or as separate disclosure document.

----
# Uradni list C 296A/3. a

| | ISSN 1977-1045 |
| --- | --- |
| Uradni list
  Evropske unije | C 296A |
| | |
| Slovenska izdaja | Informacije in objave | Letnik 653. avgust 2022 |

ISSN 1977-1045

Uradni list

Evropske unije

C 296A

Slovenska izdaja

Informacije in objave

Letnik 653. avgust 2022

---

| Vsebina | Stran |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Objave |
| | UPRAVNI POSTOPKI |
| | Skupno podjetje Fuzija za energijo |
| 2022/C 296 A/01 | Sprememba objave prostega delovnega mesta direktorice/direktorja (začasni uslužbenec / začasna uslužbenka – razred AD 14) – Evropsko skupno podjetje za ITER in razvoj fuzijske energije (F4E) – COM/2022/20086 ( UL C 285 A, 26.7.2022 ) | 1 |

Vsebina

Stran

V   Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Skupno podjetje Fuzija za energijo

2022/C 296 A/01

Sprememba objave prostega delovnega mesta direktorice/direktorja (začasni uslužbenec / začasna uslužbenka – razred AD 14) – Evropsko skupno podjetje za ITER in razvoj fuzijske energije (F4E) – COM/2022/20086 ( UL C 285 A, 26.7.2022 )

( UL C 285 A, 26.7.2022 )

1

---

| SL | |
| --- | --- |

SL

---

V Objave

UPRAVNI POSTOPKI

Skupno podjetje Fuzija za energijo

| 3.8.2022 | SL | Uradni list Evropske unije | CA 296/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.8.2022

SL

Uradni list Evropske unije

CA 296/1

---

Sprememba objave prostega delovnega mesta direktorice/direktorja (začasni uslužbenec / začasna uslužbenka – razred AD 14) – Evropsko skupno podjetje za ITER in razvoj fuzijske energije (F4E) – COM/2022/20086

(
  Uradni list Evropske unije C 285 A z dne 26. julija 2022
  )

(2022/C 296 A/01)

Stran 5, „Pogoji zaposlitve“, šesti odstavek:

| besedilo: | „Delovno mesto je na voljo od 1. januarja 2024.“ |
| --- | --- |

besedilo:

„Delovno mesto je na voljo od 1. januarja 2024.“

| se glasi: | „Delovno mesto je na voljo od 1. januarja 2023.“. |
| --- | --- |

se glasi:

se glasi

„Delovno mesto je na voljo od 1. januarja 2023.“.

---
#### Shirley OUTLAW v. Thomas L. OUTLAW.

Civ. 6361.

Court of Civil Appeals of Alabama.

June 15, 1988.

J.R. Herring of Herring, Bennett & Young, Dothan, for appellant.

Robert H. Brogden of Brogden & Quatt-lebaum, Ozark, for appellee.

HOLMES, Judge.

This is a divorce case.

After an *ore tenus*hearing, the trial court divorced the parties and effectuated a division of the property.

The wife appeals, contending, in effect, that the trial court’s judgment was inequitable and thus due to be reversed.

We find no error requiring reversal and affirm.

It is well settled, of course, that in divorce cases a trial court’s judgment is presumed to be correct and will not be set aside on appeal unless it is so contrary to the evidence as to be plainly and palpably wrong or unjust. *Sayles v. Sayles,*495 So.2d 1131 (Ala.Civ.App.1986).

Moreover, a trial court’s judgment regarding such matters as the division, of property and the award of alimony is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed on appeal except where such discretion was plainly and palpably abused. *Turquitt v. Turquitt,*506 So.2d 1014 (Ala.Civ.App.1987); *Lucero v. Lucero,*485 So.2d 347 (Ala.Civ.App.1986); *Burns v. Burns,*473 So.2d 1085 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

Although we do not think that a detailed summary of the evidence is necessary in this case, we would note that both parties were approximately fifty years old and had good jobs at the time of trial.

The wife argues, in the main, that the trial court abused its discretion by awarding the husband the marital residence and other property when compared to what she received, and in view of the fact that the husband’s income was almost twice that of hers. We disagree.

In *Edge v. Edge,*494 So.2d 71 (Ala.Civ.App.1986), we held that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by awarding the marital home and a larger share of the personal property to the wife, and in not awarding the husband periodic alimony, despite the fact that the wife’s income was considerably larger than that of the husband.

We find that case to be dispositive of the issue on appeal. This is especially so in *890view of the fact that the trial court awarded the wife another home of comparable value to that awarded the husband. The trial court also awarded the wife the sum of $17,500 as her interest in the property awarded to the husband.

Having reviewed the record with the attendant presumptions, we cannot hold that the trial court erred regarding its awards to the wife in this case. That is, we are not persuaded that the trial court’s judgment in this case constitutes a plain abuse of discretion.

We would note that we would not necessarily have made the same judgment in this case, but to reverse would be to substitute our judgment for that of the trial court. This the law does not permit. *Brannon v. Brannon,*477 So.2d 445 (Ala.Civ.App.1985).

The husband has requested an attorney’s fee for representation on appeal. That request is denied.

This case is due to be affirmed.

AFFIRMED.

BRADLEY, P.J., and INGRAM, J., concur.
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





In
connection with the Annual Report of Marine Growth Ventures, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended    March 31,
2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the “Report”), I, Katherine A Ostruszka, Chief Financial Officer of the
Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 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.





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




The
foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350 and is not being filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be
incorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made before or
after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language in such
filing.







Date:  May
      13, 2008
            By:
            /s/ Katherine A
      OstruszkaKatherine
      A Ostruszka
              Chief
      Financial Officer & Controller
              (Principal
      Financial Officer)
#### Joyce WILLIS and Pamela Tubbs, Appellants, v. Muriel DICIECO, et al., Appellees.

No. 4-86-1090.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Fourth District.

Feb. 18, 1987.

Esther A. Zaretsky, West Palm Beach, for appellants.

Lisa Miller Layman and James Patrick Garrity of Moyle, Flanigan, Katz, Fitzger-*102aid & Sheehan, P.A., West Palm Beach, for appellees.

PER CURIAM.

This cause is before the court on an appeal from a final judgment finding that some wild peafowl, either temporarily or permanently residing on appellants’ land, constitute a nuisance. This finding is supported by ample competent evidence and should be, and is, affirmed.

The only other issue before the court is the method of capture and place of relocation of these peafowl. The final judgment under review does not make clear how this is to be accomplished. We remand for an evidentiary hearing for the trial judge to make this determination so as to accomplish the same with the greatest safety to both the peafowl and the appellant landowners.

ANSTEAD and GLICKSTEIN, JJ., and KLEIN, HERBERT M., Associate Judge, concur.
Exhibit 23.1

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We have issued our report dated February 28, 2008 accompanying the consolidated financial statements and schedule and management's assessment of the effectiveness
of internal control over financial reporting included in the Annual Report of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group Inc., on Form 10-K for the year ended January 1, 2008. We
hereby consent to the incorporation by reference of said report in the Registration Statements of Einstein Noah Restaurant Group, Inc. on Forms S-8 (File
No. 333-133531, effective April 25, 2006; File No. 333-140791, effective February 20, 2007; and File No. 333-142573, effective
May 3, 2007) and Form S-1 (File No. 333-142004, effective June 7, 2007).

|/s/GRANT THORNTON LLP | 
|--------------------- | 

Denver,
Colorado
February 28, 2008

---



QuickLinks
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2463 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Normal Paraffin M. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on Normal Paraffin M. 

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

3 SECTION 1. NORMAL PARAFFIN M. 

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

5 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

6 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

7 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.01.00 Normal Paraffin M (Alkanes 

C10–C14) (CAS No. 93924– 

07–3) (ASTM D–156) (provided for in subheading 

2710.19.90) ........................... Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2011 ’’. 

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

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


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2463 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


jbell on DSKDVH8Z91PROD with BILLS