alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 195 (Friday, October 6, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 59872-59873]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to The Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy, 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that a Consent Decree in United States v. The Berkley 
Products Company, Civil Action. No. 00-CV-4628, was lodged on September 
12, 2000, with the United States District Court for the Eastern 
District of

[[Page 59873]]

Pennsylvania. The Consent Decree resolves the claims of the United 
States under sections 106(a), 107(a), and 113(g)(2) of the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 
as amended (``CERCLA''), for reimbursement of response costs incurred 
at the Berkley Products Superfund Site located in West Cocalico 
Township, Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, and for declaratory judgment 
as to liability that will be binding in actions to recover further 
response costs related to the Site. The Consent Decree obligates The 
Berkley Products Company to pay $30,000 in reimbursement of response 
costs incurred and to be incurred by EPA in responding to contamination 
at the Site.
    The Department of Justice will receive, for a period of thirty (30) 
days from the date of this publication, comments relating to the 
proposed Consent Decree. Comments should be addressed to the Assistant 
Attorney General for the Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC, 20530, and should refer toUnited 
States v. The Berkley Products Company, DOJ Ref. #90-11-3-06947.
    The Consent Decree may be examined at the office of the United 
States Attorney, 615 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 
19106; the Region III Office of the Environmental Protection Agency, 
1650 Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103; and by mail from 
the Consent Decree Library, Department of Justice, P.O. Box 7611, 
Washington, DC 20044-7611. In requesting a copy from the Consent Decree 
Library, please refer to the referenced case and enclose a check in the 
amount of $8.00 (25 cents per page reproduction cost), payable to the 
U.S. Treasury.

Walker Smith,
Deputy Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and 
Natural Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-25715 Filed 10-5-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25896]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--International Pharmaceutical Aerosol Consortium 
for Toxicology Testing of HFA-134a (IPACT-I)

    Notice is hereby given that, on July 6, 2000, pursuant to Section 
6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 1993, 
15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), The International Pharmaceutical 
Aerosol Consortium for Toxicology Testing of HFA-134a (``IPACT-I'') 
filed written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing a change in name of some of 
its members.
    The notifications were filed for the purpose of extending the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Specifically, Astra AB, a member 
of IPACT-I, is now known as AstraZeneca AB, Sodertalje, Sweden; Rhone-
Poulenc Rorer Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a member of IPACT-I, is now known 
as Aventis Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc., Collegeville, PA; and Fisons 
plc, a member of IPACT-I, is now known as Fisons Ltd., Holmes Chapel, 
England, United Kingdom.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of IPACT-I. Membership in this joint research project remains 
open, and IPACT-I intends to file additional written notification 
disclosing all changes in membership.
    On August 7, 1990, IPACT-I filed its original notification pursuant 
to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 6(b) of the Act on 
September 6, 1990 (55 Fed. Reg. 36710).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on December 3, 
1997. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
Section 6(b) of the Act on February 19, 1998 (63 FR 8477).

Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 00-25896 Filed 10-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
#### CASTIANUELA v. STATE.

No. 22713.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 19, 1944.

Aubrey Davee, of Brady, for appellant.

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

KRUEGER, Judge.

The conviction is for the unlawful sale of intoxicating liquor in a dry area. The punishment assessed is a fine of $100.

The record is before us without a statement of facts or bills of exception, in the absence of which nothing is presented for review except the sufficiency of the complaint and information, both of which appear to be in due order.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

PER CURIAM.

The foregoing opinion of the Commission of Appeals has been examined by the Judges of the Court of Criminal Appeals and approved by the Court.
**Exhibit      21.1**

**List      of Subsidiaries**

| 1. | Abucco                Technologies, Inc., a Canadian corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary                of                NNRF, Inc. Abucco Technologies has no operations and will be dissolved. |
|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 2. | Stafford                Energy Canada, Ltd., a Canadian corporation and wholly-owned subsidiary                of                NNRF, Inc. Stafford Energy Canada has no operations and will be                dissolved. |
|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| 3. | OOO                Nucon-RUS, a limited liability company formed under the laws of the                Russian Federation. Nucon-RUS is a wholly owned subsidiary of NNRF,                Inc. |
|----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----
|                                                                                                         
|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                                                                                         
|View History: Annual Download Data (XLS File)                                                           
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History: Annual                                                                                     
|View History:                                                                                            
|                                                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         
|                                                                                                         
|Colorado Natural Gas Wet After Lease Separation, Reserves in Nonproducing Reservoirs (Billion Cubic Feet)
|                                                                                                         

|Decade                                                                                                                            | Year-0 | Year-1 | Year-2 | Year-3 | Year-4 | Year-5 | Year-6 | Year-7 | Year-8 | Year-9
|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------ | ------
|1990's                                                                                                                            |        |        |        |        |        |        | 897    | 674    | 1,631  | 1,985 
|2000's                                                                                                                            | 2,958  | 3,962  | 3,781  | 3,945  | 4,409  | 4,990  | 6,685  | 9,146  | 10,839 | 8,188 
|2010's                                                                                                                            | 7,527  | 6,794  | 6,386  | 8,732  | 8,523  | 5,610  | 8,752  | 12,622 | 10,796 | 9,457 
|2020's                                                                                                                            | 6,739  | 4,516  |        |        |        |        |        |        |        |       
|- = 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
EXHIBIT 4.7


 


FORM 51-102F3


MATERIAL CHANGE
REPORT


 


		Item 1	Name and Address of Company



 


VersaBank


2002 – 140 Fullarton
Street


London, Ontario

N6A 5P2


 


		Item 2	Date of Material Change



 


April 30, 2021


 


		Item 3	News Release



 


A news release
describing the material change was issued on March 31, 2021 through the facilities of Canada News Wire and subsequently filed on SEDAR.


 


		Item 4	Summary of Material Change



 


VersaBank (the
“Bank”) announced that it intends to redeem all outstanding Non-cumulative 6-Year Rate Reset Preferred Shares, Series 3 (Non-Viability
Contingent Capital (NVCC)) ("Series 3 Preferred Shares") of the Bank on April 30, 2021 (the “Redemption Date”). 


 


		Item 5	Full Description of Material
Change



 


		5.1	Full Description of Material
Change



 


VersaBank redeemed
all outstanding Series 3 Preferred Shares of the Bank on April 30, 2021 at a price equal to $10.00 per share (the
“Redemption Price”) together with all declared and unpaid dividends to the Redemption Date. Dividends were paid separately
from the Redemption Price.


 


The redemption
was approved by the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions and was financed out of the general funds of the Bank.


 


		5.2	Disclosure for Restructuring
Transactions



 


Not Applicable


 




     


    - 2 - 


    


		Item 6	Reliance on subsection 7.1(2)
of National Instrument 51-102



 


Not Applicable.


 


		Item 7	Omitted Information



 


Not Applicable.


 


		Item 8	Executive Officer



 


For further information,
please contact:


 


David
Taylor


President
& Chief Executive Officer


Telephone
No: (519) 675-4206


 


		Item 9	Date of Report



 


April 30, 2021
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5329 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5329

       To suspend temporarily the duty on Poly(urea/formaldehyde/
                           isobutyraldehyde).

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              May 7, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
       To suspend temporarily the duty on Poly(urea/formaldehyde/
                           isobutyraldehyde).

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

SECTION 1. POLY(UREA/FORMALDEHYDE/ISOBUTYRALDEHYDE).

    (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        Poly(urea/          Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          formaldehyde/                                                     12/31/2015
                          isobutyraldehyde)
                          (CAS No. 28931-47-
                          7) (provided for
                          in subheading
                          3909.10.00)......

    (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>
```
#### D. D. MASSENBURG (D. G. Massenburg), Appellant, v. STATE, Appellee.

No. 24461.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 25, 1949.

No appearance for appellant on appeal.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for working a female employee overtime, punishment by a fine of $135.

Appellant has filed in this court his affidavit requesting that his appeal be dismissed, and the request is hereby complied with and the appeal is ordered dismissed.
#### BACON v. STATE.

No. 22864.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Oct. 11, 1944.

Rehearing Denied Nov. 22, 1944.

W. C. Boyd, Fred H. Minor, and Brent C. Jackson, all of Denton, for appellant.

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

HAWKINS, Presiding Judge.

Conviction is for robbery by assault, punishment being five years in the penitentiary. The indictment charged that appellant robbed Fred Crawford of $436.

Robert Chastain was separately indicted for the same offense. Appellant filed a motion for severance asking that Chastain be tried first. The motion was granted; Chas-tain was tried and acquitted, and appellant used him as a witness in the present trial.

Upon the trial appellant sought to prove the fact of Chastain’s acquittal. It is well established as a general rule that upon the trial of one charged with crime it is not permissible to show that another jointly or separately indicted for the same offense has been convicted or acquitted. Wharton’s Crim. Evidence, 11 Ed., Vol. 2, p. 1216, Sec. 724; 22 C.J.S., Criminal Law, § 784, p. 1334; Giles v. State, 109 Tex.Cr. R. 234, 4 S.W.2d 66; Bell v. State, 33 Tex. Cr.R. 163, 25 S.W. 769; Harper v. State, 11 Tex.App. 1; Walding v. State, 135 Tex. Cr.R. 430, 120 S.W.2d 1052. Cited in the notes under the sections in the text books will be found many cases from other jurisdictions supporting the principal announced in the Texas cases (supra).

It is not necessary to detail the facts. If the jury had accepted the evidence presented by appellant it would have resulted in an acquittal. The State’s evidence supports the verdict.

The judgment is affirmed.
```

[Congressional Bills 112th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5268 Introduced in House (IH)]

112th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5268

To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of fatty acids, C12-21 and 
C18-unsatd., 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidol esters and polyethylene or 
  polypropylene or 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzoic acid, hexadecyl 
                                 ester.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             April 27, 2012

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

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on mixtures of fatty acids, C12-21 and 
C18-unsatd., 2,2,6,6-tetramethyl-4-piperidol esters and polyethylene or 
  polypropylene or 3,5-di-tert-butyl-4-hydroxybenzoic acid, hexadecyl 
                                 ester.

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

SECTION 1. MIXTURES OF FATTY ACIDS, C12-21 AND C18-UNSATD., 2,2,6,6-
              TETRAMETHYL-4-PIPERIDOL ESTERS AND POLYETHYLENE OR 
              POLYPROPYLENE OR 3,5-DI-TERT-BUTYL-4-HYDROXYBENZOIC ACID, 
              HEXADECYL ESTER.

    (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        Mixtures of Fatty   Free            No change      No change      On or before     ''.
                          Acids, C12-21 and                                                 12/31/2015
                          C18-unsatd.,
                          2,2,6,6-
                          tetramethyl-4-
                          piperidol esters
                          (CAS No. 167078-
                          06-0) and
                          polyethylene (CAS
                          No. 9002-88-4) or
                          polypropylene
                          (CAS No. 9003-07-
                          0) or 3,5-di-tert-
                          butyl-4-
                          hydroxybenzoic
                          acid, hexadecyl
                          ester (CAS No.
                          67845-93-6)
                          (provided for in
                          subheading
                          3812.30.60 or
                          3812.30.90)......

    (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>
```
EXHIBIT A

Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 1 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 2 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 3 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 4 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 5 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 6 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 7 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 8 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 9 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 10 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 11 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 12 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 13 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 14 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 15 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 16 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 17 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 18 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 19 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 20 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 21 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 22 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 23 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 24 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 25 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 26 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 27 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 28 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 29 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 30 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 31 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 32 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 33 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 34 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 35 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 36 of 37
Case 6:20-cv-00479-ADA Document 31-2 Filed 10/05/20 Page 37 of 37
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 95-7886

MICHAEL A. WILLIAMS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

MICHAEL MOORE, Director of South Carolina

Department of Correction; ATTORNEY GENERAL OF

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Greenville. Matthew J. Perry, Jr., Senior

District Judge. (CA-95-777-6-0AK)

Submitted: June 20, 1996 Decided: July 29, 1996

Before HALL, WILKINS, and HAMILTON, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Michael A. Williams, Appellant Pro Se. Donald John Zelenka, Chief

Deputy Attorney General, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (1988) petition. Appellant's case was

referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B)

(1988). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and

advised Appellant that failure to file timely objections to this

recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court

order based upon the recommendation. Despite this warning, Appellant failed to object to the magistrate judge's recommendation.

The timely filing of objections to a magistrate judge's

recommendation is necessary to preserve appellate review of the

substance of that recommendation when the parties have been warned

that failure to object will waive appellate review. Wright v.

Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th Cir. 1985). See generally Thomas

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). Appellant has waived appellate review

by failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. We

accordingly deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the

appeal. 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.

DISMISSED