alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 27, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 58061]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-24771]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. GT00-37-000]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company; Notice of Tariff Filing

September 21, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 15, 2000, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee), tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Fifth Revised Volume No. 1, Original Sheet No. 413A. Tennessee 
requests that the Commission approve the tariff sheet to be effective 
November 1, 2000.
    Tennessee states that Sheet No. 413A reflects a non-conforming 
agreement between Piedmont Natural Gas Company and Tennessee for 
transportation and storage services under Rate Schedules FT-A and FS, 
respectively, beginning November 1, 2000.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, 
in accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's 
Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceedings. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance).

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-24771 Filed 9-26-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.1
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  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 Partnership.
 By:
    /s/ Freddie M. KotekName:
    Freddie M. KotekTitle:
    Chief Executive Officer of the
 Managing General PartnerDate: March 30, 2010
SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

646 

CAF 09-02206 

PRESENT: SCUDDER, P.J., FAHEY, LINDLEY, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ. 

 

IN THE MATTER OF CURTIS P. HOWDEN, 

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT, 

 

V MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

NAOMI R. KEELER, RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

 

CARR SAGLIMBEN LLP, OLEAN (JAY D. CARR OF COUNSEL), FOR

RESPONDENT-APPELLANT.

DUKE LAW FIRM, P.C., LAKEVILLE (SUSAN K. DUKE OF COUNSEL), FOR

PETITIONER-RESPONDENT. 

BONITA STUBBLEFIELD, ATTORNEY FOR THE CHILD, PIFFARD, FOR GWYNETH H. 

 

Appeal from an order of the Family Court, Allegany County (Lynn

L. Hartley, J.H.O.), entered March 16, 2009 in a proceeding pursuant

to Family Court Act article 6. The order, inter alia, granted sole

custody of the parties’ child to petitioner. 

It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is

unanimously affirmed without costs.

Memorandum: Respondent mother appeals from an order granting the

father’s petition seeking sole custody of the parties’ child. 

Contrary to the mother’s contention, Family Court properly concluded

that the father “ ‘ma[de] a sufficient evidentiary showing of a change

in circumstances to require a hearing on the issue whether the

existing custody order should be modified’ ” (Matter of Hughes v

Davis, 68 AD3d 1674, 1675). Here, the mother admitted that she

withheld the child from the father, and the record establishes that

she made numerous unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the

father (see e.g. Matter of Tyrone W. v Dawn M.P., 27 AD3d 1147, lv

denied 7 NY3d 705; Matter of Darla N. v Christine N. [appeal No. 2],

289 AD2d 1012).

We further conclude that the court properly determined that it

was in the best interests of the child to award the father sole

custody. The parties stipulated to the prior custody arrangement

approximately two years and four months prior to the commencement of

this proceeding. Although “a long-term custodial arrangement

established by agreement should [continue] ‘unless it is demonstrated

that the custodial parent is unfit or perhaps less fit’ ” (Fox v Fox,

177 AD2d 209, 211), “ ‘[a] concerted effort by one parent to interfere
-2- 646 

CAF 09-02206 

with the other parent’s contact with the child is so inimical to the

best interests of the child . . . as to, per se, raise a strong

probability that [the interfering parent] is unfit to act as custodial

parent’ ” (Matter of Amanda B. v Anthony B., 13 AD3d 1126, 1127). In

addition to the mother’s admissions with respect to, inter alia, her

unfounded allegations of sexual abuse against the father, the record

establishes that the mother subjected the child to unnecessary medical

examinations. Thus, the court’s custody determination, “based upon

[its] first-hand assessment of the credibility of the witnesses”

(Matter of Bryan K.B. v Destiny S.B., 43 AD3d 1448, 1449 [internal

quotation marks omitted]), has a sound and substantial basis in the

record and should not be disturbed.

Entered: June 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan

Clerk of the Court
|                                                                                               
|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                               
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                 
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                           
|View History:                                                                                  
|                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               
|                                                                                               
|Pennsylvania Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                               

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 168    | 32     | 6      | 1      | 29     | 139    | 235    | 41     | 168    | 603   
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 938    | 1,897  | 12     | 354    | 1,307  | 271    | 772    | 8,080  | 4,675  | 431   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 2,845  | 3,537  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
This schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Spectrum Control, Inc. Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet (Unaudited) at
August 31, 2000 and Condensed Consolidated Statement of Income (Unaudited)
for the nine months ended August 31, 2000 and is qualified in its entirety
by reference to its Form 10-Q for the period ended August 31, 2000
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000092769
<NAME> SPECTRUM CONTROL, INC.
<MULTIPLIER> 1000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          NOV-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               AUG-31-2000
<CASH>                                            6667
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    23944
<ALLOWANCES>                                       814
<INVENTORY>                                      26876
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 57587
<PP&E>                                           43905
<DEPRECIATION>                                   21316
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   95972
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            16925
<BONDS>                                           2417
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         43045
<OTHER-SE>                                       30264
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     95972
<SALES>                                          96260
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 96260
<CGS>                                            69202
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    69202
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1743
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                   9817
<INCOME-TAX>                                      3730
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                               6087
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                      6087
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .54
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .53


</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 03-7897

IRVING D. CHAPPELL,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CORRECTIONAL CORPORATION OF AMERICA; JOHN DOE,

I, last name Meadow-Sergeant; JOHN DOE, II,

last name Wilder; HOPE BRYANT,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior

District Judge. (CA-02-148-5-F)

Submitted: February 19, 2004 Decided: February 26, 2004

Before NIEMEYER, GREGORY, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Irving D. Chappell, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan A. Berkelhammer,

Patricia Carole Perkins, SMITH MOORE, L.L.P., Greensboro, North

Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Irving D. Chappell appeals the district court’s order

accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying

relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) complaint. We have reviewed

the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on

the reasoning of the district court. See Chappell v. Correctional

Corp. of Am., No. CA-02-148-5-F (E.D.N.C. Nov. 13, 2003). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions

are adequately presented in the materials before the court and

argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
EXHIBIT 32.1





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 China Runji Cement Inc. (the "Company") for the year ended August 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Shouren Zhao, Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 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 on the dates and for the periods presented.








Date: December 14, 2010
By: /s/Shouren Zhao

Shouren Zhao

Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
#### DANIEL v. STATE.

No. 23865.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 7, 1948.

No appearance, for appellant.

Ernest S. Goens, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

Appellant was convicted for the offense of possessing whisky for the purpose of sale in a dry area, having entered a plea of guilty. He was assessed a fine of $200.

*383The record is brought forward without bills of exception or statement of facts. The proceedings are regular. Nothing is presented for our consideration.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick

GREGORY O. WIGGLESWORTH MEMORANDUM OPINION * v. Record No. 2498-96-2 PER CURIAM APRIL 22, 1997 CARRIE F. WIGGLESWORTH

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SPOTSYLVANIA COUNTY William H. Ledbetter, Jr., Judge (Joseph J. Ellis; Ellis & Ellis, on brief), for appellant. (Carrie F. Wigglesworth, pro se , on brief).

Gregory O. Wigglesworth (husband) appeals the decision of the circuit court reserving spousal support for Carrie F. Wigglesworth (wife). Husband argues that the trial court erred in reserving future spousal support because wife failed to request a reservation of support in her pleadings. Upon reviewing the record and briefs of the parties, we conclude that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm

the decision of the trial court. Rule 5A:27. Wife was awarded spousal support by order of the juvenile

and domestic relations district court. Husband commenced this action in the circuit court, seeking to terminate the existing order of spousal support. Thus, this case commenced in the circuit court in a significantly different procedural posture

* Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not designated for publication.2 than Boyd v. Boyd , 2 Va. App. 16, 340 S.E.2d 578 (1986), which husband relies upon as authority. In Boyd , the wife failed to request spousal support when she filed her initial pleadings in the circuit court, no order concerning spousal support was filed during the proceedings, and the issue was not raised by the parties in their trial memoranda. Id. at 18, 340 S.E.2d at 579. We ruled that the issue of spousal support was not raised in the pleadings and the trial court lacked jurisdiction to award relief not sought. Id. at 19, 340 S.E.2d at 580. See also Reid v.

Reid , 24 Va. App. 146, 150, 480 S.E.2d 771, 773 (1997). Here, the requested relief was the termination of support, which wife opposed. As noted by the trial court, "the parties and counsel adduced almost 200 pages of transcribed testimony primarily on the issue of spousal support." The trial court correctly noted that wife currently receives spousal support under a valid and final order of the juvenile court. She does not have to affirmatively plead for something she has already been awarded. It is [husband] who seeks relief in this case, by way of a termination of his spousal support obligation.

The court found that husband assumed responsibility for payments on a tax lien and the outstanding indebtedness on the car in wife's possession and that those were material changes which justified a termination in support. The court then noted that, "[i]f circumstances materially change again in the future, [wife] has the right, to be expressly reserved in the divorce decree, to3 petition for a modification as provided by statute." We find no error in the trial court's decision to grant husband's request to terminate support, but reserve wife's right to petition for support again in the future. Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily affirmed.

Affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5107 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5107

     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

  Mr. Himes introduced the following bill; which was referred to the 
                      Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
     To suspend temporarily the duty on certain acrylic fiber tow.

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

SECTION 1. CERTAIN ACRYLIC FIBER TOW.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``     9902.01.00        Acrylic fiber tow   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          containing at                                                     12/31/2015
                          least 85 percent
                          by weight of
                          acrylonitrile
                          units, containing
                          a minimum of 35
                          percent water,
                          imported in the
                          form of raw white
                          (undyed) filament
                          with an average
                          filament measure
                          between 2 and 5
                          decitex per
                          filament, and
                          length greater
                          than 2 meters
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          5501.30.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to goods entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
EX-4.6




 Exhibit 4.6 
  

					
	[Certificate_Number]	  	Incorporated Under the	  	[Number_of_Shares]
		  	Laws of the State of Delaware	  	
		  	May 19, 2020	  	

 WeWork Inc. 

The corporation will furnish without charge to each stockholder who so requests the powers, designations, preferences and relative,
participating, optional or special rights of each class of stock or series thereof and the qualifications, limitations or restrictions of such preferences and/or rights. 

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT [Holder_Name] is the registered owner of [Shares_Written_Out] Shares of the [Stock_Designation_Name] of

 WeWork Inc. 
 transferable only on
the books of the Corporation by the holder hereof in person or by Attorney, upon surrender of this Certificate properly endorsed. 
 IN
WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Corporation has caused this certificate to be signed by its duly authorized officers this [_]th day of [_], 20[_]. 

 

			
	                                   
                                 	  	                                   
                                 
	[Officer_Name_and_Title]	  	[Officer_Name_and_Title]

 SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR RESTRICTIVE LEGENDS, IF ANY
KENNETH J. KENDRICK,

Petitioner,

v.

JULIE L. JONES, SECRETARY, 

FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 

CORRECTIONS,

Respondent.

___________________________/

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO 

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND 

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D16-4304

Opinion filed April 19, 2017.

Petition for Writ of Certiorari -- Original Jurisdiction.

Kenneth J. Kendrick, pro se, Petitioner.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Brett Coleman, Assistant Attorney General, 

Tallahassee, for Respondent.

PER CURIAM.

The petition for writ of certiorari is denied on the merits.

ROWE, OSTERHAUS, and WINOKUR, JJ., CONCUR.
|                                                                                                        
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                        
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                          
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History: Annual                                                                                    
|View History:                                                                                           
|                                                                                                        
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        
|                                                                                                        
|Kansas Nonassociated Natural Gas, Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves Acquisitions (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                        

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 181    | 304    | 23     | 255    | 180    | 61     | 14     | 68     | 32     | 1     
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 21     | 130    | 693    | 9      | 1,466  | 0      | 321    | 412    | 0      | 762   
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 0      | 0      |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = No Data Reported;  -- = Not Applicable;  NA = Not Available;  W = Withheld to avoid disclosure of individual company data.
|                                                                                                                                 
|Release Date: 12/30/2022                                                                                                         
|Next Release Date: 12/29/2023