alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 56 (Thursday, March 22, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 16768]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6820]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Office of the Secretary

7 CFR Part 20

RIN 0551-AA70


Export Sales Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Office of the Secretary, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule, withdrawal.

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

SUMMARY: A proposed rule published in the Federal Register on March 8, 
2012, proposing requirements to add reporting for pork (fresh, chilled, 
and frozen box/primal cuts) and distillers dried grain (DDG) to the 
Export Sales Reporting Requirements, is being withdrawn. The Foreign 
Agricultural Service (FAS) is currently awaiting approval for 
publication from the Office of Management and Budget.

DATES: As of March 22, 2012, the proposed rule published March 8, 2012 
(77 FR 13990), is withdrawn.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Contact Peter W. Burr, Branch Chief, 
Export Sales Reporting Branch, Import Policies and Export Reporting 
Division, Office of Trade Programs, Foreign Agricultural Service, 1400 
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-1021, STOP 1021; or by 
email at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0f5f6a7b6a214d7a7d7d4f696e7c217a7c6b6e21686079"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="58083d2c3d761a2d2a2a183e392b762d2b3c39763f372e">[email protected]</span></a>; or by telephone at (202) 720-3274; or 
by fax (202) 720-0876.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background

    On March 8, 2012, a proposed rule was published in the Federal 
Register establishing new reporting requirements for pork (fresh, 
chilled, and frozen box/primal cuts) and distillers dried grain (DDG) 
to the Export Sales Reporting Requirements (77 FR 13990). Subsequent to 
publication, FAS ascertained that OMB clearance was not yet received, 
so the proposed rule needs to be withdrawn until such clearance is 
conveyed.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 20

    Agricultural commodities, Exports, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements.

The Withdrawal

    Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the 
Proposed Rule, as published in the Federal Register of March 8, 2012 
(77 FR 13990) (FR Doc. 2012-05486), is hereby withdrawn.

    Authority:  7 U.S.C. 5712.

    Dated: March 14, 2012.
Suzanne Heinen,
Acting Administrator, Foreign Agricultural Service.
[FR Doc. 2012-6820 Filed 3-21-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-10-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
49990.

#### ANDERSON v. SAFFOLD et al.

*32Argued January 9, 1975

Decided January 29, 1975

Rehearing denied February 19, 1975.

*33*Levine & Roane, Irwin M. Levine,*for appellant.

*Jones, Cork, Miller & Benton, Wallace Miller, Jr.,*W. *Warren Plowden, Jr.,*for appellees.

Pannell, Presiding Judge.

The case against Central Georgia Electric Membership Corporation is controlled adversely to appellant by the rulings in *Carden v. Ga. Power Co.,*231 Ga. 456, supra; and *Ga. Power Co. v. Carden,*128 Ga. App. 347 (196 SE2d 477); and by *Ga. Power Co. v. Williams,*132 Ga. App. 874, supra.

The judge’s order in the case against S. J. Saffold, Sr., reads in part as follows: "It seems clear that an essential element of actionable negligence is foreseeability (that injury would have resulted) which would have required Saffold as the landowner to warn the deceased of likely injury or a fatality under the existing situations in this *case. Hulsey v. Hightower,*44 Ga. App. 455 (161 SE 664). The determination is to be made according to the circumstances that existed at the time of the injury. *Pfeifer v. Yellow Cab Co. of Atlanta,*88 Ga. App. 221 (76 *SE2d 225);Daneker v. Megrue,*114 Ga. App. 312 (151 SE2d 157). And there would have to be something to show that a *34warning was needed because unknown to Plaintiffs husband.

*"The duty to keep premises safe for invitees applies to defects or conditions which are in the nature of hidden dangers, traps, and the like, in that they are not known to the invitee and would not be observed by him in the exercise of ordinary care’*(Emphasis supplied.) *Day v. TrionCompany,*56 Ga. App. 1, supra.

"A finding in favor of a defendant or the sustaining of a Motion for Summary Judgment by defendant are both proper, demanded and required where both the Plaintiff and Defendant, Saffold, had knowledge of the alleged defect which caused the injury (and which could have been avoided by the exercise of ordinary care by the plaintiffs husband himself and where no *material*issue of fact remained for determination because of the deceased’s familiarity with the premises. *McGeeney v. Robertson,*102 Ga. App. 318 and *Mattison v. Jackson-Atlantic,*129 Ga. App. 279. Defendant Saffold had no *superior*knowledge of any defect of which he should have warned, or was under the duty to warn, the deceased as a part of owner Saffold’s ordinary diligence.”

With this we agree.

*Judgment affirmed in each case.*

*Quillian and Clark, JJ., concur.*
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2339 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Nitrophenol. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

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

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on 2-Nitrophenol. 

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

3 SECTION 1. 2-NITROPHENOL. 

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 2-Nitrophenol (Ortho-NitroPhenol) (CAS No. 88–75–5) 

(provided for in subheading 

2908.99.25) ........................... 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 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2339 IS

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

2 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


tjames on DSKG8SOYB1PROD with BILLS
<PAGE>

                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1

     CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

         This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and accompanies the second amendment to annual report
on Form 10-KSB (the "Form 10-KSB/A") for the year ended September 30, 2002 of
Probex Corp. (the "Issuer"). The undersigned hereby certifies that, to the best
of my knowledge, the Form 10-KSB/A fully complies with the requirements of
section 13(a) or section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C.
78m or 78(o)(d)) and that the information contained in the Form 10-KSB/A fairly
presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of
operations of the Issuer.

Dated:   April 17, 2003

By:      /s/ Charles M. Rampacek
         -----------------------
Name:    Charles M.  Rampacek
Title:   Chairman of the Board, Chief Executive Officer and President
II 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 2401 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple fibers of 

viscose rayon, carded, combed, or otherwise processed for spinning. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

OCTOBER 29, 2009 

Mrs. HAGAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To extend the temporary suspension of duty on certain staple 

fibers of viscose rayon, carded, combed, or otherwise 

processed for spinning. 

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 STAPLE FIBERS OF VISCOSE RAYON, 

4 CARDED, COMBED, OR OTHERWISE PROC5 ESSED FOR SPINNING. 

6 (a) IN GENERAL.—Heading 9902.23.34 of the Har7 monized Tariff Schedule of the United States (relating to 

8 certain staple fibers of viscose rayon, carded, combed, or 

9 otherwise processed for spinning) is amended by striking 

10 ‘‘12/31/2009’’ and inserting ‘‘12/31/2011’’. 


smartinez on DSKB9S0YB1PROD with BILLS
2 

•S 2401 IS

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
**SECTION      1350 CERTIFICATIONS**

** **

|                                                                                |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|                                                                                |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                             |   |
| Dated                      this 14th                      day of August, 2007. | By:    | /s/ Hollis                  M. Greenlaw                                                                                                                                                                                     |   |
|                                                                                |   | Hollis                  M. Greenlaw                                                                                                                                                                                              |   |
|                                                                                |   | Chief                  Executive Officer of UMTH                  Land Development, L.P.,                                                                                                                                   |   |
|                                                                                |   | sole                  general partner of the Registrant,                  and President and Chief Executive Officer of UMT Services, Inc.,                  sole                  general partner of UMTH Land Development, L.P. |   |

|   |   |                                                                                  |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                  |   |
|   | By:    | /s/ Cara                D. Obert                                                 |   |
|   |   | Cara                D. Obert                                                          |   |
|   |   | Chief                Financial Officer of UMTH                Land Development, L.P., |   |
|   |   | sole                general partner of the                Registrant                  |   |

----
EXHIBIT
23.1











INDEPENDENT REGISTERED
PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM’S CONSENT











We
consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements of
Simtrol, Inc. on Form S-8 [File No. 33-44036], Form S-8 [File No. 33-44035],
Form S-8 [File No. 33-56856],  Form S-8 File [No. 33-72512], Form S-8
[File No. 33-81314], Form S-8 [File No. 333-18237], Form S-8 [File No.
333-18239], Form S-8 [File No. 333-83035],  and Form S-8 [File No.
333-148890] of our report, which includes an explanatory paragraph as to the
company’s ability to continue as a going concern, dated March 27, 2009, with
respect to our audits of the consolidated financial statements of Simtrol,
Inc. as of December 31, 2008 and 2007, and for the years then ended, which
report is included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of Simtrol, Inc. for the
year ended December 31, 2008.





/s/
Marcum & Kliegman LLP





New York,
New York


March 27,
2009
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 226 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                 S. 226

 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
 Havre, Montana, as the Merril Lundman Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Outpatient Clinic.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            January 13, 2009

Mr. Tester (for himself and Mr. Baucus) introduced the following bill; 
which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Veterans' Affairs

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To designate the Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient clinic in 
 Havre, Montana, as the Merril Lundman Department of Veterans Affairs 
                           Outpatient Clinic.

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

SECTION 1. MERRIL LUNDMAN DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS OUTPATIENT 
              CLINIC.

    (a) In General.--The Department of Veterans Affairs outpatient 
clinic in Havre, Montana, shall after the date of the enactment of this 
Act be known and designated as the ``Merril Lundman Department of 
Veterans Affairs Outpatient Clinic''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in any law, regulation, map, 
document, record, or other paper of the United States to the outpatient 
clinic referred to in subsection (a) shall be considered to be a 
reference to the Merril Lundman Department of Veterans Affairs 
Outpatient Clinic.
                                 <all>
```
50056.

#### GLISSON v. THE STATE.

Submitted January 10, 1975

Decided March 4, 1975

Rehearing denied March 28, 1975

Quillian, Judge.

The defendant was tried and convicted for the offense of "driving under the influence.” He appealed to this court contending that the evidence was insufficient to sustain his conviction. *Held:*

1. The cases which tend to sustain the defendant’s argument with regard to circumstantial evidence in a drunk driving case (for example, *Waters v. State,*90 Ga. App. 329 (83 SE2d 25); *Gunder v. State,*95 Ga. App. 176 (97 SE2d 381); *Parrott v. State,*100 Ga. App. 652 (112 SE2d 271)), have been overruled. *Stephens v. State,*127 Ga. App. 416, 424 (193 SE2d 870); *Townsend v. State,*127 Ga. App. 797, 798 (195 SE2d 474).

2. Here the defendant’s car was overturned; he was found lying in a ditch with his feet entangled in the steering wheel of the car; the investigating officer noticed that the defendant’s speech was slurred and that from the odor of alcohol he had been drinking. An unobjected-to blood test revealed the defendant’s blood had an alcohol level of .18 (.10 gives rise to a presumption that the defendant was under the influence.) Code Ann. § 68-1625 (Ga. L. 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 575; 1966, pp. 70, 71; 1968, pp. 448, 449) repealed by Ga. L. 1974, pp. 633, 691.

The circumstantial evidence was sufficient to authorize the jury’s finding of guilty. *Stephens v. State,*127 Ga. App. 416, supra; *Townsend v. State,*127 Ga. App. 797, supra; *Tutt v. State,*128 Ga.App. 636 (197 SE2d 432).

*Judgment affirmed.*

*Pannell, P. J., and Clark, J., concur.*

*381
      *Richard D. Phillips,*for appellant.

*B. Daniel Dubberly, Jr., Solicitor,*for appellee.
EXHIBIT 32.1

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
                       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  accompanying  Annual  Report On Form 10-KSB/A of
Charys Holding Company, Inc. for the fiscal year ending April 30, 2005, I, Billy
V.  Ray,  Jr.,  Chief  Executive Officer of Charys Holding Company, Inc., hereby
certify  pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge and belief, that:

     1.     Such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for the fiscal year ending April
30,  2005, 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 such Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A for
the  fiscal  year  ending  April  30,  2005,  fairly  presents,  in all material
respects,  the  financial  condition and results of operations of Charys Holding
Company,  Inc.

     Dated:  December 5, 2005.

                                   /s/  Billy V. Ray, Jr.
                                   ---------------------------------------------
                                   Billy V. Ray, Jr., Chief Executive Officer of
                                   Charys Holding Company, Inc.


<PAGE>
#### UTAH STATE TAX COMMISSION, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. Gene M. EREKSON, Defendant and Appellant.

No. 19939.

Supreme Court of Utah.

Feb. 25, 1986.

Gene M. Erekson, pro se.

David L. Wilkinson, Atty. Gen., James L. Barker, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and respondent.

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff Utah State Tax Commission petitioned the district court below to enforce a Tax Commission subpoena served on defendant for the production of his books and records for the tax years 1979 through 1982. Defendant appeals the trial court’s finding of contempt and sentence. We dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction because of the complete absence of any final, appealable order from the trial court. *Pate v. Marathon Steel Co.,*Utah, 692 P.2d 765 (1984).

The district court’s order to show cause why defendant should not be held in contempt was heard in October 1983, and the *1152trial judge entered written findings of fact. Because of his imminent retirement, the judge transferred this case, with his findings, to Judge Ballif for any determination of contempt for defendant’s failure to comply with the Tax Commission subpoena. On February 27, 1985, Judge Ballif concluded that defendant was in contempt of the subpoena and ordered that defendant purge his contempt before April 6, 1984, by complying therewith.

On April 6, 1984, the parties again appeared before the court. An unsigned minute entry is the only record before us of this proceeding. We have not been provided any written order or judgment of the court or transcript of the testimony. According to the minute entry, the court orally found that defendant had not purged his contempt and should be sentenced to ten days in jail and a $200 fine. No order was thereafter signed or filed.

We have consistently held that a minute entry, unsigned by the court and not susceptible of enforcement, does not constitute a final, appealable order. *Wisden v. City of Salina,*Utah, 696 P.2d 1205 (1985); *State v. Hutchings,*Utah, 672 P.2d 404 (1983); *Wilson v. Manning,*Utah, 645 P.2d 655 (1982).1 Because no final order or judgment has yet been entered by the court as to defendant’s failure to purge his contempt or any consequent sentence, defendant’s appeal is without jurisdiction and must be dismissed.

Defendant also purports to appeal from the February 27, 1984, amended conclusions and order. Even if it is assumed that the order was a final determination of contempt for purposes of appeal, defendant has not timely appealed therefrom. Former Rule 73(a), Utah R.Civ.P.; *Anderson v. Anderson,*3 Utah 2d 277, 282 P.2d 845 (1955).

Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

1

. A "minute entry” that is signed by the trial judge, specifies with certainty a final determination of the rights of the parties, and is susceptible of being enforced may constitute a final order for purposes of appeal. *Dove v. Cude,*Utah, 710 P.2d 170, 171 n.1 (1985); *Cannon v. Keller,*Utah, 692 P.2d 740, 741 n.1 (1984). However, the April 6 minute entry in this case is not such an order. It has not been and is not enforceable against defendant.
SCWC-13-0003857 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI # I
POFOLK AVIATION HAWAII, INC., and HALE O # LELE CORP.,

Petitioners/Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FOR THE STATE OF HAWAI # I, GLENN M. OKIMOTO, FORD FUCHIGAMI, and SIDNEY A. HAYAKAWA,

Respondents/Defendants-Appellees.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-13-0003857; CIV. NO. 13-1-0787-03) ORDER DISMISSING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Reck tenwald, C.J., Nak ayama, Mc Kenna, Po llack, an d Wilson, JJ.)

It appearing that the judgment on appeal in the abovereferenced matter not having been filed by the Intermediate Court of Appeals at the time the application for certiorari was filed, see Hawai # i Revised Statutes § 602-59(a) (Supp. 2013); see also Hawai # i Rules of Appellate Procedure (HRAP) Rule 36(b)(1) (2012),

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Petitioners’ application for writ of certiorari, filed November 20, 2014, is dismissed without prejudice to re-filing the application pursuant to HRAP Rule 40.1(a) (2014) (“The application shall be filed within thirty days after the filing of the intermediate court of appeals’ Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-13-0003857 04-DEC-2014 07:59 AMjudgment on appeal or dismissal order, unless the time for filing

the application is extended in accordance with this rule.”).

DATED: Honolulu, Hawai # i, December 4, 2014. Eric A. Seitz and Della A. Belatti for petitioners /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Sabrina S. McKenna /s/ Richard W. Pollack /s/ Michael D. Wilson

2