alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
• ·11/01/93 

RCRA REVISION CHECKLIST 86 

Removal of Strontium Sulfide from the . List of Hazardous Wastes; Technical Amendment 

56 FR 7567-7568
 

February 25, 1991
 

(RCRA Cluster I, Non-HSWA Rule)
 

Not~: 1) Because of an error in the amendatory language in the rule (53 FR 43881, October 31, 1988, Revision 

Checklist 57) removing strontium sulfide from the list of hazardous wastes, this chemical was not removed from 

§261.33 or Part 261, Appendix VIII. This technical amendment. corrects that error by removing strontium sulfide from 

the two lists. States which have not adopted the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 57, but intend to remove strontium sulfide from their lists of hazardoUs waste, are strongly encouraged to adopt these technical amendments 

at the same time the Revision Checklist 57 provisions are adopted. States already adopting the Revision Checklist 

57 changes are encouraged to adopt the Revision Checklist 86 amendments as soon as possible. 

2) This is a conditionaLLy optional checklist. States choosing to not remove strontium sulfide from their 

hazardous waste lists should not adopt the changes addressed by this present checklist. However, those States which 

choose to remove this waste must adopt the changes addressed by Revision Checklist 86 to assure that strontium 

sulfide has been properly removed from the State's hazardous waste lists and appendices. . 

FEDERAL 

REQUIREMENT 

FEDERAL 

RCRA 

CITATION 

ANALOGOUS 

STATE 

CITATION 

STATE ANALOG IS: 

MORE 

EQUIV- STRIN-' 

ALENT GENT 

BROADER IN 

SCOPE 

PART 261 - IDENTIFICATION AND LISTING OF HAZARDOUS WASTE 

SUBPART 0 - LISTS OF HAZARDOUS WASTES - WAC 173-303 

• 

DISCARDED COMMERCIAL CHEMICAL PRODUCTS, OFF-SPECIFICATION SPECIES, CONTAINER RESIDUES, AND SPILL RESIDUES THEREOF 

t remove listing as shown below 261.33(e) 9903 X 

The following 'waste has been removed from the 261.33(e) list: 

"p107...1314-96-1. ••Strontium sulfide SrS" 

APPENDIX VIII TO PART 261 

HAZARDOUS CONSTITUENTS 

t remove listing
 as shown below Appendix VI I I 9904 X
 

The following listing has been removed from Appendix VIII:
 

"Strontium sulfide ...Strontium sul fide SrS... 1314-96-1. •• P107"
 

• February 25, 1991 - Page 1 of 1
Exhibit 99
                           Forward-Looking Statements

The following factors, among others, could cause actual results to differ
materially from those contained in forward-looking statements made in this
report and presented elsewhere by management from time to time.

Dependence on Others: The Company's present growth strategy for development and
management of additional lodging facilities entails entering into various
arrangements with present and future property owners. There can be no assurance
that any of the Company's current agreements with property owners will be
continued, or that the Company will be able to enter into future collaborations.

Contract Terms for New Units: The terms of the operating contacts, distribution
agreements, franchise agreements and leases which relate to the Company's
lodging facilities are influenced by contract terms offered by the Company's
competitors at the time such agreements are entered into. Accordingly, there can
be no assurance that contracts entered into or renewed in the future will be on
terms that are as favorable to the Company as those under existing agreements.

Competition: The profitability of hotels operated by the Company is subject to
general economic conditions, competition, the desirability of particular
locations, the relationship between supply of and demand for hotel rooms, and
other factors. The Company generally operates hotels in markets that contain
numerous competitors, and the continued success of the Company's hotels in their
respective markets will be dependent, in large part, upon those facilities'
ability to compete in such areas as access, location, quality of accommodations,
amenities, and cost.

Supply and Demand: During the 1990s, construction of lodging facilities in the
United States resulted in an excess supply of available rooms, and the
oversupply had an adverse effect on occupancy levels and room rates in the
industry. The current outlook for the industry indicates that the lodging
industry may be adversely affected in the future by (i) international, national
and regional economic conditions, (ii) changes in travel patterns, (iii) taxes
and government regulations which influence or determine wages, prices, interest
rates, construction procedures and costs, and (iv) the availability of capital.
875 Elm Street
                                                            Manchester, NH 03101
                                                            (603) 634-6000


March 22, 2000

Mr. Neil Rossen, CFO
Presstek, Inc.
9 Commercial Street
Hudson, NH 03051-3907

Dear Neil:

I am writing to communicate that Citizens Bank has approved the following
changes to the existing Loan Agreement.

Effective December 31, 1999, the definition of `Tangible Capital Base" will be
modified. The new definition shall read: "Tangible Capital Base" means total
shareholders' equity less intangible assets less subordinated debt plus any
non-cash liability recorded as a result of the Shareholder Class Action Lawsuit,
all as determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles
from Borrower's financial statements delivered to the bank in accordance with
the covenants of the Borrower in the Loan Agreement.

I will coordinate the preparation of legal documents and call you next week for
an appropriate time to close this modification. Please don't hesitate to call
should you have any questions.

Regards,


/s/ John Mercier
John Mercier
Vice-President
* Pursuant to 5 T H 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. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit



## FILED

April 6, 2004

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-30632

Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

ARTHUR J. GOINS,

Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Louisiana

(02-CR-20041-2)

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

Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PICKERING, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Defendant-Appellant Arthur J. Goins appeals his conviction for

possession of a firearm in furtherance of a drug trafficking crime,

in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A ). The government

challenges our jurisdiction, arguing that the district court abused

its discretion in granting Goins an extension of time on the

grounds of excusable neglect under F ED

. R. A PP

. P . 4(b)(4). The2

governmen t also contends that, even with the extension of time,

Goins’s notice of appeal was untimely.

After considering the relevant factors, we have determined

that the district court did not abuse its discretion in granting an

extension of time based on excusable neglect. S ee Pioneer Inv.

Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. P’ship

, 507 U.S. 380, 395

(1993); United States v. Clark

, 51 F.3d 42, 44 (5th Cir. 1995). We

have further determined that, given the court’s extension of time,

Goins’s notice of appeal was timely filed. S ee United States v.

Miller

, 666 F.2d 991, 993 (5th Cir. 1982); Deloney v. Estelle

, 661

F.2d 1061, 1063 (5th Cir. 1981). We therefore have jurisdiction to

hear Goins’s appeal.

Goins contends that the evidence was insufficient to support

his conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A). He argues that the

evidence shows merely that he legally possessed loaded firearms in

his home, but not that he did so in furtherance of any drug

trafficking crimes.

The evidence adduced at trial was that loaded semi-automatic

weapons were found in the same closet as a bag containing

approximately 196 grams of ma rijuana, and that crack cocaine and

scales for weighing narcotics were found in another part of the

small home. Given the proximity of the firearms to illegal drugs

and the presence of scales used in drug trafficking, and viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, a rational

juror could have found beyond a reasonable doubt that Goins3

possessed the firearms in furtherance of a drug-trafficking crime.

See United States v. Ceballos-Torres

, 218 F.3d 40 9, 410-11

(5th Cir. 2000).

The judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.
#### In the Matter of BASF CORPORATION CHEMICAL DIVISION.

No. 89-C-0695.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 21, 1989.

In re BASF Corporation Chem. Div.;— Defendant(s); applying for writ of certiora-ri and/or review; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. CA87 0625; Department of Environmental Quality.

Prior report: La.App., 538 So.2d 635.

Denied.
#### Hilda A. LEAVITT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Erlene M. SMITH, as Personal Representative of the Estate of A. Earl Mitchell, Respondent-Appellee.

No. 85CA1293.

Colorado Court of Appeals, Div. I.

March 19, 1987.

Law Offices of Richard P. Daly, P.C., Richard P. Daly, Denver, for petitioner-appellant.

David L. Mitchell, Fort Collins, for respondent-appellee.

PIERCE, Judge.

Petitioner, Hilda Leavitt, appeals the summary judgment entered in favor of respondent, Erlene Smith, as personal representative of the estate of decedent, Archie Earl Mitchell (Mitchell). We affirm.

Petitioner and Mitchell were married until 1946, at which time an interlocutory decree of divorce was entered. This decree was entered in August 1946, and required Mitchell to pay $45 per month as child support for their minor child until further order of the court. The decree further provided that the divorce would be final after six months had expired from the date of its entry.

Payments were allegedly made in accordance with the decree until April 1947.

*1270In June 1960, the minor child attained the age of 21 and child support payments ceased to accrue. However, at that time, no demand was made for the arrearages of child support, nor had demands been previously made.

Mitchell died on October 16, 1984. Thereafter, petitioner commenced this suit seeking unpaid child support from April 1947 until June 1960. Respondent moved for summary judgment contending petitioner’s claim was time-barred by the statute of limitations. This motion was granted by the trial court, and this appeal ensued.

Because her claim is barred by a statute of limitation, we disagree with petitioner’s contention that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Although such claims must be reduced to formal judgment before execution may be had on them, *see In re Marriage of Woodrum,*618 P.2d 732 (Colo.App.1980), there is no question that installment amounts of child support or alimony, if so reduced, become final judgments on the date they accrue. *Hauck v. Schuck,*143 Colo. 324, 353 P.2d 79 (1960). Thus, the longest possible statute of limitations is that pertaining to judgments. *Hauck v. Schuck, supra.*This statutory time period begins to run from the due date of each installment. *See Treaster v. Laird,*33 Colo.App. 297, 519 P.2d 1231 (1974).

Whether petitioner’s claim was barred by § 13-52-102(2), C.R.S. (twenty-year limitation) or § 13-80-110(l)(b), C.R.S. (six-year limitation) is of no import here. Petitioner’s claim for unpaid child support was filed far more than twenty years after June 1960, the final required payment date. Thus, even if we assume that arrearages became final judgments in June 1960, such a claim is still barred by both statutes.

Accordingly, the district court correctly granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and that judgment is affirmed.

KELLY and METZGER, JJ„ concur.
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Raymond A. TUCKER.

No. 87-KH-0707.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Nov. 13, 1987.

In re Tucker, Raymond A.; applying for supervisory writs; Parish of Orleans, Criminal District Court, Div. “G”, No. 257-140.

*452Granted and transferred to Court of Appeal 4th Circuit for consideration.
#### Robert WICKHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Florida, Appellee.

No. 86-1845.

District Court of Appeal of Florida, Second District.

Dec. 9, 1987.

*329Robert S. McClure, New Port Richey, for appellant.

Robert A. Butterworth, Atty. Gen., Tallahassee, and Charles Corees, Jr., Tampa, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed. Any contention that appellant’s sentence was not within the plea bargain must be made in the trial court by a motion to withdraw plea or a Rule 3.850 motion to vacate.

CAMPBELL, A.C.J., and HALL and THREADGILL, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 8 (Thursday, January 12, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Page 1919]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-624]


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

CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, January 18, 2012, 10 a.m.-11.a.m.

PLACE: Room 420, Bethesda Towers, 4330 East West Highway, Bethesda, 
Maryland.

STATUS: Commission Meeting--Open to the Public

Matter To Be Considered: Briefing Matter: Infant Swings--Notice of 
Proposed Rulemaking.
    A live webcast of the Meeting can be viewed at www.cpsc.gov/webcast. For a recorded message containing the latest agenda 
information, call (301) 504-7948.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Todd A. Stevenson, Office of the 
Secretary, U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, 4330 East West 
Highway, Bethesda, MD 20814, (301) 504-7923.

    Dated: January 10, 2012.
Todd A. Stevenson,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012-624 Filed 1-10-12; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 6355-01-P
#### STATE of Louisiana v. Early SMITH a/k/a Earl Smith.

No. KA 87 0802.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, First Circuit.

Oct. 14, 1987.

John M. Bemiss, Jr., Asst. Indigent Defender, Port Allen, for defendant, Early Smith a/k/a Earl Smith appellant.

Ronald G. Coleman, Alfred C. Williams, Baton Rouge, 0. Romaine Russell, Livingston, T. Barry Wilkinson, Asst. Dist. Atty., Port Allen, for State of La. appellee.

Before LOTTINGER, EDWARDS and ALFORD, JJ.

*566ALFORD, Judge.

Relator complains of the denial of his application for post-conviction relief. His proper remedy is to apply for supervisory writs. *See*La.C.Cr.P. art. 930.6(A). Such an application should comply with *either*Rule 5-2 or Rule 4, Uniform Rules — Courts of Appeal. Since the present “appeal” does not comply with either rule, this matter shall not be considered as an application for supervisory writs. *Compare State v. Clause,*486 So.2d 1206 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1986).

APPEAL DISMISSED.
EXHIBIT 13.1

                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     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), each of
the undersigned officers of Bonso Electronics International, Inc., a British
Virgin Islands international business company (the "Corporation"), does hereby
certify, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     The Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended March 31, 2004 (the "Form
20-F") of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)
or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended and information
contained in the Form 20-F fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Corporation.



Dated: August 13, 2004                /s/  Anthony So
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Anthony So
                                      Chief Executive Officer


Dated: August 13, 2004                /s/  Cathy Kit Teng Pang
                                      ------------------------------------------
                                      Cathy Kit Teng Pang
                                      Chief Financial Officer
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 the Treasury

###### Internal Revenue Service

# AGENCY:

Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.

# ACTION:

Notice of Closed Meeting of Art Advisory Panel.

# SUMMARY:

Closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel for Fine Art will be held in New York, NY.

# DATES:

The meeting will be held April 19, 2012.

# ADDRESSES:

                        The closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on April 19, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m.,                               ( print page 17571)                            at 290 Broadway, Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.                    

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth M. Vriend, C:AP:P&V:ART, 999 N. Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 20003. Telephone (202) 435-5739 (not a toll free number).

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Notice is hereby given pursuant to section 10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, 5 U.S.C. App., that a closed meeting of the Art Advisory Panel will be held on April 19, 2012, beginning at 9:30 a.m., at 290 Broadway, Foley Square, New York, NY 10007.

The agenda will consist of the review and evaluation of the acceptability of fair market value appraisals of works of art involved in Federal income, estate, or gift tax returns. This will involve the discussion of material in individual tax returns made confidential by the provisions of 26 U.S.C. 6103.

A determination as required by section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act has been made that this meeting is concerned with matters listed in section 552b(c)(3), (4), (6), and (7), and that the meeting will not be open to the public.

Christopher Wagner,

Chief, Appeals.

[FR Doc. 2012-7106 Filed 3-23-12; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
## Court of Appeals Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Jerry Lee Sanders , Appellant

No. 06

- 21

- 00119

- CV v.

Cheryl Vaughan, as Independent Executrix of the Estate of Dollie Barrett, Deceased

, Appellee Appeal from the County Court at Law No.
2 of Hunt County, Texas (Tr. Ct

. No.
CC2100382 ). Memorandum Opinion delivered by Justice van Cleef

, Chief
Justice Morriss and Justice Stevens participating

.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we vacate the trial court ’ s judgment and

dismiss the cause for want of jurisdiction

. We further order that the appell ee pay all costs incurred by reason of this appeal.

RENDERED SEPTEMBER 2, 2022
BY ORDER OF THE COURT JOSH R. MORRISS, III
CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST: Debra K. Autrey , Clerk
October 31, 2014

Paul D. Salvati

12560 N.W. 83rd Court

Parkland, Florida 33076-4931

Dear Mr. Salvati:

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from 

§ 61.156(a) and (b) of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we 

cannot process your request.

Why We Can Not Process Your Request

We entered your October 10, 2014, exemption request into the public docket (No. FAA-2014-

0833), but we are unable to process your request any further. The information you sent does

not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). The information you provided 

did not identify;

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would 

benefit the public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would not adversely affect safety or how the exemption 

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you 

seek an exemption.

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

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described 

earlier to us within 30 days from the date of this letter. We will consider the docket on your 

request open until the expiration of the 30-day period. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires 

you to send your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of 

the exemption.
2

If We Do Not Hear From You

If we do not receive the requested information from you within the 30 day period, we will 

close the docket without notifying you further. If you have any questions or require additional 

time, you may call (202) 267-9677.

Sincerely,

//s//

James M. Crotty

Manager, Airport and 

 Aircraft Rules Division

Enclosure
**EXHIBIT 10.62**
***JPS INDUSTRIES, INC.***
*555 North Pleasantburg Drive**Suite 202**Greenville, SC 29607-2181*
*Phone: (864) 239-3916**Fax: (864) 271-9939*
*Michael L. Fulbright**Chairman, President and**Chief Executive Officer*
December 19, 2002
Mr. Charles R. Tutterow18315 Invergorden LaneCornelius, NC 28031
Dear Mr. Tutterow:
     We are writing with respect to your employmentagreement (the “Agreement”) with JPS Industries, Inc.(the “Company”) dated May 30, 2000, a copy ofwhich is attached hereto. The Company desires to amend theAgreement by extending the term of employment in the Agreementfrom December 31, 2002 to December 31, 2003. Allreferences in the Agreement to December 31, 2002, shallhereafter be deemed to be December 31, 2003, and allreferences to the “Employment Period” shall hereafterbe deemed to end on December 31, 2003. All other terms,definitions and conditions in the Agreement shall remainunchanged, and the Agreement shall remain in full force andeffect with no changes other than as specifically referencedherein.
     If the foregoing is satisfactory to you, pleaseso indicate by signing and returning to the Company the enclosedcopy of this letter agreement.
 JPS INDUSTRIES, INC.      /s/ Michael L. Fulbright      President and C.E.O.    
ACCEPTED AND AGREED TO:
/s/ Charles R. TutterowCharles R. Tutterow