alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 196 (Tuesday, October 10, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 60184]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-25852]



[[Page 60184]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP00-594-000]


Young Gas Storage Company, Ltd.; Notice of Tariff Filing

October 3, 2000.
    Take notice that on September 29, 2000, Young Gas Storage Company, 
Ltd. (Young), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, the tariff sheets listed in Appendix A 
to the filing, to be effective March 27, 2000.
    Young states these tariff sheets reflect the change in Right-of-
First Refusal provisions permitted by the Commission's Order No. 637, 
737A and 637B (collectively referred to as Order No. 637). 
Specifically, effective on or after March 27, 2000, the firm shipper's 
contract must be for service for twelve consecutive months or more at 
the applicable maximum rate for that service, except that a contract 
for more than one year, for a service which is not available for twelve 
consecutive months would also be subject to the Right-of-First Refusal. 
Young also states it is making a clarification concerning incremental 
rates.
    Young further states that copies of this filing have been served on 
Young's jurisdictional customers and public bodies.
    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, NE., Washington, DC 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. 00-25852 Filed 10-6-00; 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

In connection with the Annual Reportof Citadel Broadcasting Corporation (theCompany) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2006, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the Report), I, Farid Suleman, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| | (i) | the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
| | --- | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



| | (ii) | the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
| | ---- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                                     
|-------------------------------------
|Date: March 15, 2007                 
|                                     
|/S/ FARID SULEMAN                    
|Farid Suleman Chief Executive Officer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to
Citadel Broadcasting Corporation and will be retained by Citadel Broadcasting Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
T HE ODORE 

### R. K U LONCOS KI GOVE RNOR September 21 , 201 0

Dennis McLerran , Regional Administrator U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Regi o n I 0 1200 6th Avenue, Suite 900 Seattle, WA 98101 RE: Placement of Asto ri a Marine Construction on Natio nal Pr iorities List

- Concurrence Dear 

### Mr. McLerran: We have been informed ofU.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Region 1

O's plan to place Astoria Marine Construction on the National Priorities List. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ) staff, after reviewin g the fac ts and communicating with local stakeholders, have recommended our concurrence. I agree with th is recommendation. Therefore, purs uant to 40 CFR 300.425(2), thi s letter serves as official documentation of Oregon's concurrence with placement of Astoria Marine Construction on the National Priorities Li st. The Astoria Marine Construction s ite i s a boat refurbishment and maintenance yard located approximately three miles south of the C ity of Astoria in Clatsop Co unty, Oregon. This facility- which sits o n th e east b:;mk of the Lewi s and Clark River , about one mile upstream of its confluence with Young 's Bay

- h as been in opcrat ion since the 19 20' s an d employed as many as 100 workers durin g its peak production in the t 940

- SO's. Th e facility sti ll provides ship repair and re furbi s hm e nt serv ices and currently employs about 10 workers. EPA's recent inspections show that contamination from hi storic ind u st rial activities is present in site soils and ground\vater on the f ac ility site and has accumulated in Lewis and Clark River sedi me nts s urrounding the facility. Elevated concentrations of petroleum cons tituents , heavy metals and marine pesticide s on and near the s ite pose a threat to human health and eco logical species. DEQ' s records show some minor removal work was performed by the site owners in th e mid-1 990's, but the most recent data s how that remedial action is needed.

ST

ATE CAPITOL, SAL EM 9730 1 -4047 (5 0 3) 378 -3 111 FAX (503) 37 8-4863 TIY (5 03) 378-4859 WWW
. GOVERN O R. STATE. O R. USDennis McLerran, Regional Administrator September 21, 201 0 Page Two

I fully support listing the Astoria Marine Construction site on the National Priorities List. Placing this site on the National Priorities List is a critical step to protect the health oflocal residents, threatened and endangered fish s pecies, and recreational water users.

TRK:mc:jb c: Dan Opalski, USEPA Region I 0 Dick Pedersen, Director, Oregon DEQ
THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13-17-00396-CR

John Rafael Arguello

v.

The State of Texas

On Appeal from the

258th District Court of San Jacinto County, Texas

Trial Cause No. 11,717

JUDGMENT

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on 

appeal, concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed as modified by 

this Court. The Court orders the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

June 28, 2018
**Exhibit 15.4**

** **

Tel: +61 438 802 818 AndrewF@KenmoreConsult.com.auPO Box 2055 Churchlands WA 6018 ABN: 29 159 944 591 The Board of Directors of Randgold Resources Limited (the “Company”)March 28, 2017 Re: Consent Ladies and Gentlemen: I, Andrew Fox, do hereby consent to the reference of myself in the Company’sAnnual Report on Form 20- F for the year ended December 31, 2016 (the “Annual Report”) to which this consent is anexhibit, to any reference to Mr. Andrew Fox under the heading “Experts” in any registration statement into which theAnnual Report is incorporated by reference, and to the citation and/or summarization of the reserve statement in the Annual Reportas calculated by me for the Loulo underground ore reserves.   Dated this 28th day of March 2017.   By: Name:Andrew Fox Title: Consultant page 1 of 1
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 97-6500

BILLY LEE LISENBY, JR., Plaintiff - Appellant, versusCHERAW CHRONICLE; OFFICER DEAVER; JOHN T. MAYFIELD; DOUGLAS CURTIS; NATE BURROUGHS, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. David C. Norton, District Judge. (CA-96-2580-4-18BE) Submitted: June 19, 1997 Decided: June 30, 1997 Before WILKINS and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Billy Lee Lisenby, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Douglas Curtis, Appellee; L. Hunter Limbaugh, WILLCOX, MCLEOD, BUYCK & WILLIAMS, P.A., Florence, South Carolina; Michael R. Sullivan, HOWSER, NEWMAN & BESLEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1994) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation and find no reversible error in the denial of reliefon Appellant's defamation claim. Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Lisenby v. Cheraw Chronicle , No. CA-96-2580-4-18BE (D.S.C. Mar. 19, 1997). Appellant also appeals the district court's order dismissing his claim of excessive force during arrest on res judicata grounds. Appellant's case was referred to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) (1994). 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 reviewby failing to file objections after receiving proper notice. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court denying relief on Appellant's excessive force claim. We deny Appellant's3 motion to appoint counsel and dispense with oral argument becausethe facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
## S IXTH 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________ Case No. 6D2 3

- 1608 Lower Tribunal No. 2020

- CA

- 7589

- O

_____________________________ N ICOLE I NGRAM and C HRIS I NGRAM , i ndividually and as p arent of A.I., a m inor , Appellant s ,

v. V ISTANA M ANAGEMENT , I NC

. , Appellee

.

_____________________________ Appeal from the Circuit Court for Orange County

. Reginald K. Whitehead , Judge. April 2, 2024
PER CURIAM

. AFFIRMED

. STARGEL , SMITH and BROWNLEE , JJ., c oncur.

Alan D. Sackrin , of Sackrin & Tolchinsky, P.A. , Hallandale Beach , for Appellant s
. Lissette Gonzalez , of Cole, Scott & Kissane, P.A. , Miami , for Appellee.

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSITION THEREOF IF TIMELY FILED
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 Kronos International, Inc. (the Company)
      on
      Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2006 as filed with the Securities
      and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Harold C. Simmons,
      Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and I, Gregory M. Swalwell, Chief
      Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
      adopted pursuant to § 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.














/s/
      Harold C.
      Simmons


Harold
      C.
      Simmons


Chief
      Executive Officer








/s/
      Gregory M. Swalwell


Gregory
      M. Swalwell


Chief
      Financial Officer








March
      13,
      2007








Note:
      The
      certification the registrant furnishes in this exhibit is not deemed “filed” for
      purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
      or
      otherwise subject to the liabilities of that Section. Registration Statements
      or
      other documents filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission shall not
      incorporate this exhibit by reference, except as otherwise expressly stated
      in
      such filing.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of the Interior

###### Bureau of Land Management

          - [WY-920-1310-01; WYW142079]

                    Pursuant to the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 3108.2-3(a) and (b)(1), a petition for reinstatement of oil and gas lease WYW142079 for lands in Johnson County, Wyoming, was timely filed and was accompanied by all the required rentals accruing from the date of termination.                          ( print page 61180)    

                    The lessee has agreed to the amended lease terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $10.00 per acre, or fraction thereof, per year and 16                    2/3                     percent, respectively.                

                    The lessee has paid the required $500 administrative fee and $158 to reimburse the Department for the cost of this                     **Federal Register**                     notice. The lessee has met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in Section 31 (d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to reinstate lease WYW142079 effective July 1, 2000, subject to the original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and royalty rates cited above.                

Theresa M. Stevens,

Acting Chief, Leasable Minerals Section.

[FR Doc. 00-26422  Filed 10-13-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4316-22-M
**Exhibit 12.01**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Dr. Greg R. Collier, certify that:

 

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 20-F of ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited;

 

2.             Based on my knowledge, this reportdoes not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state amaterial fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report;

 

3.             Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presentedin this report;

 

4.             The company’s other certifyingofficer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the company and have:

 

(a)           Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, orcaused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under oursupervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company,including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others withinthose entities, particularly during the period in which this report is beingprepared;

 

(b)           [Paragraph omitted pursuant to SEC Release Nos. 33-8238and 34-47986]

 

(c)           Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosurecontrols and procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about theeffectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of theperiod covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

 

(d)           Disclosed in this report any change in the company’sinternal control over financial reporting that occurred during the periodcovered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonablylikely to materially affect the company’s internal control over financialreporting; and

 

5.             The company’s other certifyingofficer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the company’s board of directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):

 

(a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’s abilityto record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting.

 

Date:November 23, 2007

 

/s/ Greg R. Collier

Dr.Greg R. Collier

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 302 has beenprovided to ChemGenex Pharmaceuticals Limited and will be retained by ChemGenexPharmaceuticals Limited and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commissionor its staff upon request.

 

----
CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS
ADOPTED PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the quarterly report of Cytation Corporation (the
"Company") on Form 10QSB/A for the period ending September 30, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I,
Richard Fisher, Chairman of the Board 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.



/s/ Richard
Fisher                            Richard
FisherChairman of the Board and Chief Financial Officer

December 19, 2005
1

The Honorable Joseph F. Bataillon, Chief Judge, United States District Court

for the District of Nebraska.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 06-2222

___________

United States of America, *

*

Appellee, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the

* District of Nebraska.

Walter Tomasino-Zapata, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: February 20, 2007

Filed: March 1, 2007 

___________

Before SMITH, GRUENDER, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Walter Tomasino-Zapata (Zapata) appeals the sentence the district court1

imposed after he pleaded guilty to illegally reentering the United States, in violation

of 8 U.S.C. § 1326(a) and (b)(2), and to identity theft, in violation of 18 U.S.C.

§ 1028A. His counsel has moved to withdraw and filed a brief under Anders v.

California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Zapata has filed a supplemental brief.
-2-

Zapata entered into a plea agreement in which he waived his right to appeal.

We conclude that the waiver is valid, because the record shows that Zapata entered

into both the plea agreement and waiver knowingly and voluntarily. See United States

v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (this court will enforce

appeal waiver contained in plea agreement when “both the waiver and plea agreement

were entered into knowingly and voluntarily”). To the extent Zapata argues his

counsel was ineffective, we see no reason to depart from this court’s usual rule of

requiring ineffective-assistance claims to be raised in a 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion,

where a proper record can be developed. See United States v. Ramirez-Hernandez,

449 F.3d 824, 827 (8th Cir. 2006) (this court “will consider ineffective-assistance

claims on direct appeal only where the record has been fully developed, where not to

act would amount to a plain miscarriage of justice, or where counsel’s error is readily

apparent”).

Having determined that Zapata’s plea and appeal waiver were voluntary and

knowing, we conclude the waiver bars the arguments raised by Zapata and his

counsel. In addition, we have reviewed the record in accordance with Penson v. Ohio,

488 U.S. 75, 80 (1988), and we find no nonfrivolous issues that fall outside the scope

of the appeal waiver. We conclude that no miscarriage of justice would result from

enforcing the waiver in this appeal. Cf. Andis, 333 F.3d at 890 (court will not enforce

valid plea waiver where to do so would result in miscarriage of justice). Thus, we

specifically enforce the appeal waiver by dismissing this appeal. We also grant

counsel’s motion to withdraw.

______________________________