alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 5 (Tuesday, January 8, 2013)]
[Notices]
[Pages 1211-1212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-00142]


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

EXPORT-IMPORT BANK OF THE UNITED STATES

[Public Notice 2012-0558]


Application for Final Commitment for a Long-Term Loan or 
Financial Guarantee in Excess of $100 million: AP086856XX

AGENCY: Export-Import Bank of the United States.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This Notice is to inform the public, in accordance with 
Section 3(c)(10) of the Charter of the Export-Import Bank of the United 
States (``Ex-Im Bank''), that Ex-Im Bank has received an application 
for final commitment for a long-term loan or financial guarantee in 
excess of $100 million (as calculated in accordance with Section 
3(c)(10) of the Charter). Comments received within the comment period 
specified below will be presented to the Ex-Im Bank Board of Directors 
prior to final action on this Transaction.
    Reference: AP086856XX.

Purpose and Use

    Brief description of the purpose of the transaction:

To support the export of U.S.-manufactured commercial aircraft to 
Luxembourg.

    Brief non-proprietary description of the anticipated use of the 
items being exported:

To provide cargo services globally.

    To the extent that Ex-Im Bank is reasonably aware, the item(s) 
being exported are not expected to be used to produce exports or 
provide services in competition with the exportation of goods or 
provision of services by a United States industry.

Parties

    Principal Supplier: The Boeing Company.
    Obligor: Cargolux Airlines International S.A.
    Guarantor(s): N/A.

Description of Items Being Exported

    The items being exported are Boeing 747 aircraft.
    Information On Decision: Information on the final decision for this 
transaction will be available in the ``Summary Minutes of Meetings of 
Board of Directors'' on http://www.exim.gov/articles.cfm/board%20minute.
    Confidential Information: Please note that this notice does not 
include confidential or proprietary business information; information 
which, if disclosed, would violate the Trade Secrets Act; or 
information which would jeopardize jobs in the United States by 
supplying information that competitors could use to compete with 
companies in the United States.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 4, 2013 to be 
assured of consideration before final consideration of the transaction 
by the Board of Directors of Ex-Im Bank.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be submitted through Regulations.gov at 
www.regulations.gov. To submit a comment, enter EIB-2012-0053 under the 
heading ``Enter Keyword or ID'' and select Search. Follow the 
instructions provided at the Submit a Comment screen. Please include 
your name,

[[Page 1212]]

company name (if any) and EIB-2012-0053 on any attached document.

Sharon A. Whitt,
Records Clearance Officer.
[FR Doc. 2013-00142 Filed 1-7-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6690-01-P
OFFICIAL NOTICE FROM C0mj4)F,CRIMINAUA|lPe?Cr>e^te

OFFICIAL

STATE 0?'fM«&

•• PENALTY FORil yjiTM .,. 1R $qa OR5

3/6/2015 PRiVATEUSE^ V"^^^§ ooo655745s marii*1"5

GOFFNEY, HARRY Tr. Gt Nia.JS^4.14'sAs mailed from zifWR*82=367-G

On this day, the application for. 11.07 Writ of Habeas Corpus has been received'

and presented to the Court. n

O u Abel Acosta, Clerk

lotHARRY GOFFNEY

>1

iEB'r-4,
<PAGE>

                                                                  Exhibit 4(b)


                              CERTIFICATE OF TRUST
                                       OF
                                 ASBC CAPITAL I


         THIS CERTIFICATE OF TRUST of ASBC CAPITAL I (the "Trust") is being duly
executed and filed by the undersigned, as trustees, to form a business trust
under the Delaware Business Trust Act (12 Del. Code Section 3801 et seq.) (the
"Act").

              1. Name. The name of the business trust being formed hereby is
ASBC Capital I.

              2. Delaware Trustee. The name and business address of the trustee
of the Trust with a principal place of business in the State of Delaware are The
Bank of New York (Delaware), White Clay Center, Route 273, Newark, Delaware
19713.

              3. Effective Date. This Certificate of Trust shall be effective
upon filing.

         IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have executed this Certificate of
Trust in accordance with Section 3811(a)(1) of the Act.

                                  THE BANK OF NEW YORK (DELAWARE),
                                  not in its individual capacity but solely
                                  as Trustee

                                  By: /s/ Michael Santino
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                  Name:  Michael Santino
                                  Title: Senior Vice President

                                  By: /s/ Brian R. Bodager
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                  Brian R. Bodager, not in his individual
                                  capacity but solely as Administrative Trustee

                                  By: /s/ Teresa A. Rosengarten
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                  Teresa A. Rosengarten, not in her individual
                                  capacity but solely as Administrative Trustee

                                  By: /s/ Joseph B. Selner
                                     ----------------------------------------
                                  Joseph B. Selner, not in his individual
                                  capacity but solely as Administrative Trustee
# QuarterlyTruckRatesbyOriginDest
Court of Appeals

Sixth Appellate District of Texas

J U D G M E N T

Alvin Peter Henry, Jr., Appellant

No. 06-14-00130-CR v.

The State of Texas, Appellee

Appeal from the 6th District Court of Lamar 

County, Texas (Tr. Ct. No. 25589). Opinion 

delivered by Justice Burgess, Chief Justice 

Morriss and Justice Moseley participating.

As stated in the Court’s opinion of this date, we find no error in the judgment of the court 

below. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

We note that the appellant, Alvin Peter Henry, Jr., has adequately indicated his inability to 

pay costs of appeal. Therefore, we waive payment of costs.

RENDERED APRIL 16, 2015

BY ORDER OF THE COURT

JOSH R. MORRISS, III

CHIEF JUSTICE

ATTEST:

Debra K. Autrey, Clerk
<PAGE>




                                                                    EXHIBIT 10.1

                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statements Nos.
333-58832, 333-58836, and 333-58840 of UTi Worldwide Inc. on Form S-8 of our
report dated April 3, 2002 appearing in this Annual Report on Form 20-F of UTi
Worldwide Inc. for the year ended January 31, 2002.


/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Los Angeles, California

May 6, 2002
### IN THE TENTH COURT OF APPEALS
No. 10
- 14
- 00137
- CV
2008 CHEVROLET CORVE TTE, VIN#1G1YY36W58510545 5 , Appellant
v. THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

From the 66th District Court Hill County, Texas Trial Court No. 51,223

O R D E R
James Tyron Riggs’s motion for rehearing was received and filed on April 4, 2016. It was sent under a cover letter dated March 28, 2016. Riggs’s motion, however, was due March 25, 2016. See T EX

. R. A PP
. P 49.1. Accordingly, Riggs’s motion for rehearing is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.2008 Chevrolet Corvette v. State Page 2

Absent a specific exemption, the Clerk of the Court must collect filing fees at the time a document is presented for filing. T EX

. R. A PP
. P . 12.1(b); Appendix to T EX

. R. A PP
. P ., Order Regarding Fees (Amended Aug. 28, 2007, eff. Sept. 1, 2007). S ee also T EX

. R. A PP
. P . 5; 10 TH T EX

. A PP
. (W ACO ) L OC

. R. 5; T EX

. G OV ’ T C ODE A NN . §§ 51.207(b); 51.208; § 51.941(a) (West 2013). Under these circumstances, we suspend the rule and order the Clerk to write off all unpaid fi ling fees in this case. T EX

. R. A PP
. P . 2. The write

- off of the fees from the accounts receivable of the Court in no way eliminates or reduces the fees
owed.
PER CURIAM Before Chief Justice Gray, Justice Davis, and Justice Scoggins Motion dismiss ed Order issued and filed April 14, 2016
**Exhibit 31.2****CERTIFICATIONS**I, Dean L. Cash, certify that:1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB/A of ATEL Capital Equipment Fund XI,LLC;2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisreport;4. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosurecontrols and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that materialinformation relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, ismade known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period inwhich this report is being prepared;  b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this reportbased on such evaluation; and  c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and5. The registrant’s (or persons performing the equivalent functions): a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operationof internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and  b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employeeswho have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financialreporting.Date: November 21, 2005/s/ Dean L. Cash
**Exhibit31.1**

**CERTIFICATION**

I, Salvatore D’Auria, certify that:

 

1.                                       I have reviewed this Form 10-Q/AAmendment No.1 of Tut Systems, Inc.;

 

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report.

 

Date: September 2, 2004

 
| * * | * * | *By:*    | */s/ Salvatore D’Auria*                                                                  |
|----------|----------|----------|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| * * | * * | * * | *Salvatore D’Auria,*                                                                     |
| * * | * * | * * | *President, Chief Executive Officer and  Chairman of the Board (Principal Executive Officer)* |

 

----
HLD-004 NOT PRECEDENTIAL

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT

___________

No. 15-1111

___________

IN RE: JASON EMANUEL SMART-EL,

Petitioner

____________________________________

On a Petition for Writ of Mandamus from the

United States District Court for the District of New Jersey

(Related to D.N.J. Civ. No. 1:13-cv-00164)

____________________________________

Submitted Pursuant to Rule 21, Fed. R. App. P.

February 20, 2015

Before: MCKEE, Chief Judge, GARTH and BARRY, Circuit Judges

(Opinion filed: April 14, 2015)

_________

OPINION*

_________

PER CURIAM

Jason Emanuel Smart-El filed a petition for writ of mandamus requesting that we 

direct the District Court to rule on a motion that he had filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2255. The District Court has since granted Smart-El’s § 2255 motion. In light of the 

District Court’s action, the question Smart-El presented is no longer a live controversy, 

so we will dismiss the petition as moot. See, e.g., Lusardi v. Xerox Corp., 975 F.2d 964, 

 

* This disposition is not an opinion of the full Court and pursuant to I.O.P. 5.7 does not 

constitute binding precedent.
2

974 (3d Cir. 1992); see also Blanciak v. Allegheny Ludlum Corp., 77 F.3d 690, 698-99 

(3d Cir. 1996) (“If developments occur during the course of adjudication that eliminate a 

plaintiff’s personal stake in the outcome of a suit or prevent a court from being able to 

grant the requested relief, the case must be dismissed as moot.”)
#### Richard Byron FJELDSTED, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. S. Tony COX, Director, Driver’s License Division, Department of Public Safety, State of Utah, Defendant and Respondent.

No. 16428.

Supreme Court of Utah.

April 24, 1980.

*383Loni F. DeLand of McRae & DeLand, Salt Lake City, for plaintiff and appellant.

Robert B. Hansen, Atty. Gen., Bruce M. Hale, Asst. Atty. Gen., Salt Lake City, for defendant and respondent.

STEWART, Justice:

This appeal is from an order revoking plaintiff’s driver’s license for his refusal to take a blood alcohol test. The district court found (1) that plaintiff had been properly requested to take a chemical test pursuant to the Implied Consent Statute, § 41-6-44.-10, Utah Code Ann. (1953), as amended, following his arrest at the scene of an automobile accident; (2) that plaintiff had refused to submit to the test; (3) that the Implied Consent Statute was properly explained to him and that he had been informed he had no right to an attorney, and (4) that plaintiff had admittedly and knowingly refused to take the breathalyzer.

On appeal plaintiff asserts that he was not given a *Miranda*warning and that *Holman v. Cox,*Utah, 598 P.2d 1331 (1979), requires that persons arrested for driving while intoxicated be given the *Miranda*warning. Plaintiff misreads *Holman. Holman*merely restates the basic law that the *Miranda*warning must be given only if the statements of the arrested person are to be held admissible in a subsequent criminal proceeding against him. We did not hold that a *Miranda*warning must be given in every case in which a person is arrested on suspicion of driving under the influence of alcohol. The *Miranda*warning is intended to prevent the use of undue influence by the police in extracting admissions or confessions. Failure to give the warning serves only to exclude admissions by the defendant in a criminal case.

Plaintiff’s second point, that the *Miranda*warning was not given him, is incorrect as a matter of fact and irrelevant as a matter of law. Plaintiff’s refusal to take a blood test until he could call his lawyer constituted a refusal under the statute and a valid basis for revocation of plaintiff’s license. These issues are fully treated in *Beck v. Cox,*Utah, 597 P.2d 1335 (1979), and *Holman v. Cox, supra.**1*

Affirmed.

CROCKETT, C. J., and MAUGHAN, WILKINS and HALL, JJ., concur.

1

. See also the concurring opinion of Justice Stewart in Muir v. *Cox,*Utah, 611 P.2d 384 (1980), which amplifies the holding of *Holman.*
#### STATE of Alaska et al., Appellants, v. REEFER KING COMPANY, INC., Appellee. STATE of Alaska et al., Appellants, v. NEW NELCO, INC., et al., Appellees. NEW NELCO, INC., et al., Cross-Appellants, v. STATE of Alaska et al., Cross-Appellees.

Nos. 2605-2607.

Supreme Court of Alaska.

April 13, 1977.

*703John R. Messenger, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Avrum M. Gross, Atty. Gen., Juneau, for appellants and cross-appellees.

L. B. Jacobson, Robertson, Monagle, Eas-taugh & Bradley, Juneau, for appellees and cross-appellants.

Before BOOCHEVER, C. J., and RABI-NOWITZ, CONNOR, ERWIN and BURKE, JJ.

OPINION ON REHEARING

BURKE, Justice.

Appellee Reefer King Company, Inc., filed a petition for rehearing after our decision was rendered in *State of Alaska et al. v. Reefer King Company, Inc.,*559 P.2d 56 (Alaska 1976). We are persuaded by the petition to modify our earlier holding in one respect, upon the ground that we have overlooked or misconceived a material fact. Rule 27(a)(2), Alaska R.App.P.

The record supports petitioner’s contention that the M/V REEFER KING processed crab exclusively at Kodiak from 1965 through April 21, 1967. The only movement of the vessel during that period of time was to and from the State of Washington for drydocking and repairs. Such movement, under our decision, would not destroy the processor’s shore based status.

Accordingly, our earlier opinion is modified to reflect that Reefer King Company, Inc. is due $37,881.10, plus interest, for excess taxes paid on its operations from 1964 to July 1, 1966.

We find the other points raised by the petition to be without merit. As to those points, the petition is denied.
Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATIONI, Peter E. Jokiel, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Specialty Underwriters’Alliance, Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of amaterial 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 misleadingwith respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financialinformation included in this report, fairly present in all material respects thefinancial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible forestablishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in ExchangeAct Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have: (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or causedsuch disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including itsconsolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities,particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;  (b) [Intentionally Omitted];  (c) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based as of the end ofthe period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and  (d) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’smost recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the caseof an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely tomaterially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting;and
25

 
 5. The registrant’s other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors(or persons performing the equivalent functions): (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in thedesign or operation of internal control over financial reporting which arereasonably 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 orother employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internalcontrol over financial reporting.Date: November 14, 2005       /s/ Peter E. Jokiel              Peter E. Jokiel         Executive Vice President         and Chief Financial Officer  
26
#### Richard DeSantis et al., Respondents, v Empire State Coin-Op Distributors, Inc., Appellant.

—Order unanimously modified on the law and as modified affirmed and matter remitted to Supreme Court for further proceedings, in accordance with the following Memorandum, with costs to abide the event: Although we agree with Supreme Court’s finding that there is a substantial question whether the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate, we conclude that the court failed to comply with the statutory directive requiring that such issue "be tried forthwith in said court” (CPLR 7503 [a]). Therefore, we modify and direct that the court forthwith hold a trial on the issue whether the parties had a valid agreement to arbitrate *(see, Housekeeper v Lourie,*39 AD2d 280, 285, *appeal dismissed*32 NY2d 832; *see also, Oberlander v Fine Care,*108 AD2d 798; *Matter of Barrett Intercommunication Prods. Corp. v Entron, Inc.,*41 AD2d 567). (Appeal from Order of Supreme Court, Onondaga County, Murphy, J.—Arbitration.) Present—Dillon, P. J., Callahan, Boomer, Balio and Lowery, JJ.
July 30, 2015

Mr. Thomas S. Vreeland

Director

The Vreeland Institute, Inc.

529 County Route 7A

Copake, NY 12516

Dear Mr. Vreeland:

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

part 21; §§ 45.23(b), 61.3, 91.7(a), 91.9(b)(2), 91.103, 91.109, 91.119, 91.121, 91.151(a), 

91.203(a) and (b), 91.205(b), 91.215, 91.405(a), 407(a)(1), 409(a)(2), and 417(a) and (b) of 

Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we cannot process your 

request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Cannot Process Your Request

We received your May 19, 2015, exemption request on behalf of The Vreeland Institute, Inc.

filed into the public docket (No. FAA−2015−1719), but we are unable to process your request 

any further. Your petition does not comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy enclosed). 

For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

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

benefit the public as a whole.

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

For more detailed information relating to submitting petitions for exemption, please visit 

http://aes.faa.gov/petition/index.html. This website helps the petitioner to meet Federal 

Aviation Administration (FAA) requirements outlines in § 11.81 and helps answer any 

questions you may have.

What You Should Do

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

earlier to reach us within 30 days. 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 information, we will close the docket without notifying you further. 

If you have any questions you may call the 333 Information Line (202) 267-2999.

Sincerely,

/s/

Brittany Newton

Manager, Airmen and 

 Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure
3