alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 204 (Friday, October 20, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 63099]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-27006]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE


Notice of Lodging of Consent Decree Pursuant to the Clean Water 
Act

    In accordance with Departmental policy and 28 CFR 50.7, notice is 
hereby given that on October 4, 2000, a consent decree was lodged in 
United States v. Maryland Aviation Administration, a Unit of the 
Maryland DOT, Civil Action No. WMN-00-2992, with the United States 
District Court for the District of Maryland.
    This consent decree resolves alleged violations of Clean Water Act 
section 309, 33 U.S.C. 1319, against the Maryland Aviation 
Administration, a Unit of the Maryland Department of Transportation, 
which is an Agency of the State of Maryland, for discharges in excess 
of permitted effluent limits and failure to meet requirements set forth 
in MAA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit for its 
facility at the Baltimore Washington International Airport in Glen 
Burnie, Anne Arundel County, Maryland. Components of the settlement 
agreement include: (1) Injunctive provisions designed to reduce the 
amount of deicing fluid discharged; (2) a penalty payment of $50,000; 
(3) a Supplemental Environmental Project to perform a fish study valued 
at $90,000; and (4) a payment of $50,000 to the citizen plaintiffs for 
their attorneys fees and costs associated with the related civil 
action: WMN-98-784.
    The Department of Justice will receive comments relating to the 
proposed consent decree for a period of thirty days from the date of 
publication of this notice. Comments should be addressed to the 
Assistant Attorney General, Environment and Natural Resources Division, 
Department of Justice, Washington, DC 20530, and should refer to United 
States v. Maryland Aviation Administration, a Unit of the Maryland DOT, 
DOT Ref. No. 90-5-1-1-4543. The proposed Consent Decree may be examined 
at the office of the United States Attorney, District of Maryland, 604 
United States Courthouse, 101 West Lombard Street, Baltimore, MD 21201. 
Copies of the consent decree may also be examined at the offices of the 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. A copy of the Consent Decree may also 
be obtained by mail from the Department of Justice Consent Decree 
Library, P.O. Box 7611, Washington, DC 20044. When requesting a copy by 
mail, please enclose a check in the amount of $10.75 (twenty-five cents 
per page reproduction costs), payable to the ``Consent Decree 
Library.``

Bruce Gelber,
Chief, Environmental Enforcement Section, Environment and Natural 
Resources Division.
[FR Doc. 00-27006 Filed 10-19-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-15-M
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in theRegistration Statement on Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-47246,333-62356 and 333-114341) and Form S-8 (File Nos.333-62630, 333-98243 and 333-110167) of Horizon Offshore, Inc.of our report dated March 12, 2004 relating to theconsolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2003 and therelated consolidated statements of operations,stockholders’ equity and cash flows for the years endedDecember 31, 2003 and 2002 of Horizon Offshore, Inc. whichappears in this form 10-K/A Amendment No. 2.     /s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers    LLPHouston, TexasAugust 15, 2005
#### TOWN OF LAKESIDE PARK v. CRESCENT PARK, Inc. et al.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

Dec. 14, 1951.

*453Stephens L. Blakely, John R. Blakely, Blakely, Moore & Blakely, 'Covington, for appellant.

Albert H. Root, George J. Kaufmann, Newport, for appellees.

STANLEY, Commissioner.

This is an action for a declaration of rights in a controversy relating to the right of the appellees to tap an outlet sewer of the town of Lakeside Park.

In 1937, the appellant by contract acquired an easement through a 60 acre tract of land for the purpose of constructing and maintaining a sewer line to a disposal plant on a lot purchased outright from the owners of the tract. As the consideration for the easement, the instrument recites that the town “agrees to permit said grantors, the heirs and assigns of all or any part of said land whereon improvements may be made to tap into said sewer system by means of X branches for disposal of sewage, excluding surface water.” The property then and now is outside the town limits. The sewer was built and the property passed to the appellee, Crescent Park, Inc., which sold lots thereon to its coap-pellees. The judgment declares their right to tap the sewer line in accordance with the terms of the easement.

The town contends that the provision of the contract giving the right to tap the sewer line is ultra vires because a sixth class municipality has no statutory authority to construct sewer facilities for the use and benefit of persons and property outside its boundaries. Supporting the contention is the argument that such use by as many persons as are contemplated would impose too great a burden on the sewer line.

The statute authorized the town to build, maintain, and operate a sewer system with the “necessary appurtenances, within or without the corporate limits of the city, for the purpose of supplying the city and its inhabitants”. KRS 94.160. Such a town, in the absence of an agreement, has the power to condemn a right of way within or without its limits as may be necessary to complete the system. KRS 94.170.

The other side draws the analogy to the right of municipalities to sell electricity and water where the outsiders furnish their own facilities and connect with the water lines. City of Lexington v. Jones, 289 Ky. 719, 160 S.W.2d 19; Davisworth v. City of Lexington, 311 Ky. 606, 224 S.W.2d 649.

We do not think the case calls for the consideration of the abstract proposition. The town had the power to acquire the right of way by contract and to pay for it. The grant of the easement was the price paid, and it must be observed. Bond Bros. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, 307 Ky. 689, 211 S.W.2d 867; Louisville and Jefferson Metropolitan Sewer District v. Joseph E. Seagram & Sons, 307 Ky. 413, 211 S.W.2d 122, 123, 4 A.L.R.2d 588. Whether charges may be made for the use of the sewer is not involved in this case.

The judgment is affirmed.
Exhibit 32.2

                  CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL FINANCIAL OFFICER

  Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
                           Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

I, Drew A. Moyer, Principal Financial Officer of Technitrol, Inc., certify,
pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1)   the quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the three months ended July 1, 2005
      (the "Periodic Report") which this statement accompanies fully complies
      with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)) and

(2)   information contained in the Periodic Report fairly presents, in all
      material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
      Technitrol, Inc.

Dated:  August 9, 2005
        --------------

                                                /s/ Drew A. Moyer
                                                -----------------
                                                Drew A. Moyer

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to Technitrol, Inc., and will be
retained by Technitrol, Inc., and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.

This certification accompanies the Form 10-Q to which it relates, is not deemed
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission and is not to be incorporated
by reference into any filing of the Registrant under the Securities Act of 1933
or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether made before or after the date of
the Form 10-Q), irrespective of any general incorporation language contained in
such filing.
#### ADAMS v. STATE.

No. 22419.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

March 3, 1943.

No attorney for appellant.

Spurgeon E. Bell, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

DAVIDSON, Judge.

Upon his plea of guilty to the offense of cattle theft, appellant was assessed two years in the state penitentiary.

The record is before us without statement of facts or bills of exception. Nothing is presented for review.

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.
#### Charles H. Sewall, Respondent, *v.*Weeks Moving & Storage Corp., Appellant.

Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department,

April 24, 1957.

*339*Robert Pratt*for appellant.

*Charles H. Bewail,*respondent in person.

*Per Curiam.*

Notwithstanding the erroneous quotation of a lower rate, plaintiff was required to pay the minimum rate fixed by the tariffs duly filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission *(Louisville & Nashville R. R. Co.*v. *Maxwell,*237 U. S. 94; *Pennsylvania R. R. Co.*v. *Titus,*216 N. Y. 17, 22, 23; *Willson*v. *American Ry. Express Co.,*204 App. Div. 59, affd. 239 N. Y. 562).

The judgment should be unanimously reversed on the law and facts, without costs, and complaint dismissed, with appropriate costs in the court below. Appeal from order should be dismissed as academic.

Pette, Hart and Brown, JJ., concur..

Judgment reversed, etc.
#### In the Matter of the Intermediate Accounting of Bankers Trust Company, as Trustee of the Trust Made by Life’s Fresh Air Fund.

Supreme Court, Special Term, New York County,

January 27, 1958.

*1027
      *W. Garrett Flicldnger*for petitioner.

*Louis J. Lefkowits, Attorney-General,*for charitable beneficiaries.

Samuel H. Hofstadter, J.

Incidental to its accounting in this proceeding, the trustee requests instructions with respect to its investment powers under the trust indenture. The investment clause reads: ‘ ‘ The Trustee is hereby authorized and empowered from time to time to invest and reinvest the trust property, with full power of sale in connection therewith, in such securities as it may deem best, provided that before selling any securities held in the trust or purchasing any securities or other property on account of the trust, the trustee shall first secure in writing the approval of the President of Life’s Fresh Air Fund, or in case of his failure or inability to act, the approval of some person designated by the directors of Life’s Fresh Air Fund.” The question presented is whether the trustee is limited to legal investments, that is, those permitted by section 21 of the Personal Property Law or whether it is free of such restriction, subject, of course, to the duty to exercise prudence and due care and to obtain the approval of the donor corporation, as provided in the indenture. The court holds that the latter is the true meaning of the indenture and that accordingly the trustee is not confined to legal investments, but may invest in any securities subject to the limitations above stated. The term “ securities ” includes preferred and common stocks. *(Matter of Free,*4 Misc 2d 463, 466; *Matter of Jeffress,*198 Misc. 249.) The expression *‘ ‘*in such securities as it may deem best ’ ’ is substantially the same as “ such securities as they may deem prudent and advisable ’ ’ and *‘1*such securities as to them seems advisable ”, the language used in the cases above cited. The indenture is, therefore, so construed.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

NATIONAL VEHICLE AND FUEL EMISSIONS LABORATORY

2000 TRAVERWOOD DRIVE ANN ARBOR, MI 48105-2498

OFFICE OF

AIR AND RADIATION

August 17, 2012

MEMORANDUM SUBJECT: Meeting with Penske Automotive Group to d iscuss the EPA/NHTSA Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Sta ndards for Model Year 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles

FROM: William Charmley, US EPA

TO: EPA Docket # EPA-HQ-OAR-2010-0799

This memo documents a meeting held on May 15, 2012 between representatives of the Penske Automotive Group and EPA to discuss the EPA/NHTSA J oint Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

for Greenhouse Gas and CAFE Standards for Model Yea r 2017-2025 Light-Duty Vehicles. This meeting took place at EPA’s offices in Washington, D.C.

The meeting attendees included Roger Penske, Chief Executive Officer of the Penske Automotive Group, and Margo Oge, Director of EPA’s Office of Transportation and Air Quality.

During this meeting Mr. Penske discussed his writte n comment submitted on the NPRM regarding Penske Automotive Group’s support for the operationally independent small volume manufacture provisions which EPA requested comment on.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

JORGE ARREAGA GONZALEZ, 

Petitioner, 

 v. 

WILLIAM P. BARR, Attorney General, 

Respondent.

No. 15-70873 

Agency No. A200-098-024 

MEMORANDUM*

On Petition for Review of an Order of the

Board of Immigration Appeals

Submitted September 8, 2020**

Before: TASHIMA, SILVERMAN, and OWENS, Circuit Judges.

Jorge Arreaga Gonzalez, a native and citizen of Mexico, petitions for review 

of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ order dismissing his appeal from an 

immigration judge’s decision denying his application for asylum, withholding of 

removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”). We have 

jurisdiction under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. We review for substantial evidence the 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

SEP 11 2020

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 15-70873 

agency’s factual findings. Zehatye v. Gonzales, 453 F.3d 1182, 1184-85 (9th Cir. 

2006). We deny the petition for review. 

Substantial evidence supports the agency’s determination that Arreaga 

Gonzalez failed to establish the harm he experienced or fears was or would be on 

account of a protected ground. See Zetino v. Holder, 622 F.3d 1007, 1016 (9th Cir. 

2010) (an applicant’s “desire to be free from harassment by criminals motivated by 

theft or random violence by gang members bears no nexus to a protected ground”). 

Thus, Arreaga Gonzalez’s asylum and withholding of removal claims fail.

Substantial evidence also supports the agency’s denial of CAT relief because 

Arreaga Gonzalez failed to show it is more likely than not he will be tortured by or 

with the consent or acquiescence of the government if returned to Mexico. See 

Aden v. Holder, 589 F.3d 1040, 1047 (9th Cir. 2009); see also Guo v. Sessions, 897 

F.3d 1208, 1217 (9th Cir. 2018) (insufficient likelihood of torture).

PETITION FOR REVIEW DENIED.
I 

113TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 2941 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs to make certain grants to assist nursing homes for veterans 

located on tribal lands. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

AUGUST 1, 2013 

Mrs. KIRKPATRICK (for herself, Mr. COLE, Mr. COOK, Ms. TITUS, Mr. 

O’ROURKE, Ms. SINEMA, Mr. BARBER, and Mr. GRIJALVA) introduced 

the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Veterans’ Affairs 

A BILL 

To amend title 38, United States Code, to authorize the 

Secretary of Veterans Affairs to make certain grants 

to assist nursing homes for veterans located on tribal 

lands. 

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

3 SECTION 1. GRANTS FOR STATE HOMES LOCATED ON TRIB4 AL LANDS. 

5 (a) STATE HOME DEFINED.—Section 101(19) of 

6 title 38, United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘or 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 2941 IH

1 federally recognized Indian tribe’’ after ‘‘(other than a 

2 possession)’’. 

3 (b) PAYMENTS TO STATE HOMES.—Section 1741 of 

4 title 38, United States Code, is amended by adding at the 

5 end the following new subsection: 

6 ‘‘(g) In this subchapter, the term ‘State’ means each 

7 of the several States and each federally recognized Indian 

8 tribe.’’. 

9 (c) STATE HOME CONSTRUCTION.— 

10 (1) IN GENERAL.—Section 8131(2) of title 38, 

11 United States Code, is amended by inserting ‘‘in12 cludes each federally recognized Indian tribe but’’ 

13 before ‘‘does not’’. 

14 (2) CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—Section 8132 

15 of such title is amended by striking ‘‘several’’. 

Æ 


jbell on DSK7SPTVN1PROD with BILLS
### UNITED STATES NAVY

- MARINE CORPS

COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

WASHINGTON, D.C.

Before

R.Q. WARD, J. R. MCFARLANE, G.G. GERDING

Appellate Military Judges

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

THOMAS J. MCLAUGHLIN II

SERGEANT (E

- 5), U.S. MARINE CORPS

NMCCA 201400040

GENERAL COURT

- MARTIAL

**Sentence Adjudged:** 3 October 2013

. **Military Judge:** LtCol C.M. Greer, USMC

. **Convening Authority:** Commanding General, Training Command,

Quantico, VA

. **Staff Judge Advocate's Recommendation:** LtCol M.E. Sayegh,

USMC

. **For Ap pellant:**  LtCol Richard Belliss, USMC R

. **For Appellee:** Mr. Brian Keller , Esq

.

**30 April 2014** 

**---------------------------------------------------**

**OPINION OF THE COURT**

**---------------------------------------------------**

After careful consideratio n of the record, submitted

without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence

as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform

Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL

Clerk of Court
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Derrick Griffin, Appellant.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Jay Gold, J.), rendered April 20, 1989, convicting defendant, after a jury trial, of burglary in the third degree and criminal mischief in the fourth degree and sentencing him, as a second felony offender, to concurrent indeterminate prison terms of 2 to 4 years for the burglary count and six months for each of the criminal mischief counts unanimously affirmed.

A witness observed defendant enter a locked church by prying the door apart sufficiently to squeeze through. The police arrived after the witness observed defendant leaving the church. Defendant was arrested as he was walking down the block. The church was discovered in total disarray, with property broken and strewn about.

The trial court was correct in refusing to charge intoxication pursuant to Penal Law § 15.25. "A charge on intoxication should be given if there is sufficient evidence of intoxication in the record for a reasonable person to entertain a doubt as to the element of intent on that basis”. *(People v Perry,*61 NY2d 849, 850; *People v Rodriguez,*76 NY2d 918.) There was insufficient evidence that defendant ingested drugs. Neither of the officers saw defendant exhibit signs of intoxication, and defendant was able to make coherent statements.

Defendant’s argument that the prosecutor’s comments about intent were improper is unpreserved for appellate review. The prosecutor’s comment that the facts were uncontroverted was harmless error due to curative instructions by the court. Defendant’s remaining contentions are without merit. Concur —Sullivan, J. P., Ross, Asch, Kassal and Smith, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                               5
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                      140
<ALLOWANCES>                                        11
<INVENTORY>                                         64
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                  1141
<PP&E>                                             342
<DEPRECIATION>                                      98
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1388
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              226
<BONDS>                                              2
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                         15
<COMMON>                                             4
<OTHER-SE>                                        1086
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1388
<SALES>                                            719
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                   719
<CGS>                                              331
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      331
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     1
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                    162
<INCOME-TAX>                                        66
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                 97
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                        97
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                        0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.1

      CERTIFICATION BY CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
   PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF
                         THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K of TenFold Corporation
(the "Company") for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Nancy
M. Harvey, President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial 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, to the best of my
knowledge:

     (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/ Nancy M. Harvey
--------------------------
Nancy M. Harvey
President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Financial Officer
March 31, 2003
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

 vs. § Case No. ____________________ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

§ 

NOTICE OF CHANGE OF ADDRESS 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: 

The undersigned attorney files this Notice of Change of Address and requests that the 

Court’s docket in the above-styled cause be updated accordingly. 

My new address is as follows: 

Firm _________________________________________________________ 

Street _________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

City, State, Zip _________________________________________________________ 

Telephone/Fax _________________________________________________________ 

State Bar # _________________________________________________________ 

Respectfully submitted, 

_______________________________________ 

The Change of Address Form should be completed and electronically filed in active case(s) 

only. For questions, please contact the help desk at: txwd_ecf_help@txwd.uscourts.gov

6:20-cv-471-ADA

DAIGNAULT IYER LLP

8200 Greensboro Drive

Suite 900

Mclean, VA 22102

571-287-0986

90891 - VA

Stephanie R. Mandir

Waco

SITO MOBILE R&D IP, LLC AND

FLOSPORTS, INC.

SITO MOBILE, LTD.

Case 6:20-cv-00471-ADA Document 29 Filed 02/15/21 Page 1 of 1