alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 238 (Monday, December 11, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 77361]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31417]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP01-139-000]


Transwestern Pipeline Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in FERC 
Gas Tariff

December 5, 2000.
    Take notice that on November 30, 2000 Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern) tendered for filing to become part of Transwestern's 
FERC Gas Tariff Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff 
sheets to be effective January 1, 2001:

124 Revised Sheet No. 5
29 Revised Sheet No. 5A
21 Revised Sheet No. 5A.02
20 Revised Sheet No. 5A.03
26 Revised Sheet No. 5B

    Transwestern states that the purpose of this filing is to set forth 
the approved 2001 Gas Research Institute (GRI) surcharges for the 2001 
calendar year to be effective January 1, 2001 in accordance with the 
Commission's Order approving The Gas Research Institute's Year 2001 
Research, Development and Demonstration Program and 2001-2005 Five-Year 
Plan issued on September 29, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-313-000.
    Transwestern states that copies of the filing were served upon 
Transwestern's customers and interested State Commissions.
    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). 
Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in 
lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on 
the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-31417 Filed 12-8-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### ANDERSON et ux. v. COX.

No. 924.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Eastland.

Dec. 4, 1931.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 22, 1932.

Wilburn Barcus, of Big Spring, for appellants.

Thomas & McDonald, of Big Spring, for appellee.

HICKMAN, C. J.

This case has not been briefed. We have inspected the transcript, and same discloses a fundamental error on its face. Under the holding of the Supreme Court in answer to a certified question from this court in Haynes v. J. M. Radford Grocery Co., 118 Tex. 277, 14 S.W.(2d) 811, we would not meet the requirements of justice were we to close our eyes to fundamental error when found. We shall therefore proceed to dispose of the appeal on questions of fundamental- error only.

Appellee D. B. Cox sued appellants W. R. Anderson and wife, Wilma Anderson, on a promissory note for the principal sum of $5,-500, and the foreclosure of a deed of trust lien upon certain real estate. Usury was pleaded by appellants, and their plea was sustained. Judgment was accordingly rendered for the actual original indebtedness,disregarding all interest, and for the attorney’s . fees provided in the note. Both defendants have appealed. The petition discloses on its face that Mrs. Wilma Anderson is a married woman, the wife of W. R. Anderson. No facts whatever are pleaded which would authorize a personal judgment against her on her note. It was not alleged that the indebtedness was incurred for necessaries or for the benefit of her separate estate. It is the settled law of this state that such a petition will not support a money judgment against a married woman. Trimble v. Miller, 24 Tex. 214; Covington v. Burleson, 28 Tex. 368; Daniel v. Sayle (Tex. Civ. App.) 40 S.W.(2d) 1101.

Ordinarily, an error of this nature calls for a remand of the cause for a new trial. However, there are findings of fact by the trial court in the transcript, and these findings disclose that the note was given for a loan, which indicates that no recovery could be had against Mrs. Anderson upon amended pleadings in another trial. Our order will therefore be that, in so far as the judgment below awarded a personal recovery against Mrs. Wilma Anderson, the same be reversed and here rendered in' her favor, and that in all other respects the judgment below be affirmed.

Should appellee, on motion for rehearing, complain of this order and request a general remand of the case, the order will probably be changed accordingly. One-half of the costs of this appeal will be adjudged against appellant W. R. Anderson, and one-half against appellee D. B. Cox.

Affirmed in part; reversed and rendered in part.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM JONES 
APPAREL GROUP, INC. FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AS OF AND FOR THE YEAR ENDED 
DECEMBER 31, 1998, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH 
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<RESTATED>
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-30-1998
<CASH>                                          15,365
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  195,893
<ALLOWANCES>                                     2,977
<INVENTORY>                                    242,705
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               499,858
<PP&E>                                         137,195
<DEPRECIATION>                                  39,637
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 653,874
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          168,842
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           547
<OTHER-SE>                                     439,578
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   653,874
<SALES>                                        380,151
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               383,774
<CGS>                                          252,561
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  252,561
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                67,193    
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                   213
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               1,556 
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 62,781
<INCOME-TAX>                                    24,171
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,610
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,610
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.38
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.37
        

</TABLE>
### Fw: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates Monica Morales Monica Morales to: Crystal Freeman 04/12/2012 01:42 PM Cc: Vanessa Hinkle, Sara Laumann

For the MT RH docket.

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064

----- Forwarded by Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US on 04/12/2012 01:35 PM -----

From: Monica Morales/R8/USEPA/US To: Don_Shepherd@nps.gov, "Sorkin, Jeff" < jasorkin @fs.fed.us>, Patricia_F_Brewer@nps.gov,

Sandra_V_Silva@fws.gov, Tim_Allen@fws.gov, baanderson02@fs.fed.us, "Dzomba, Thomas C -FS" <tdzomba@fs.fed.us>, Carol_McCoy@nps.gov Cc: Vanessa Hinkle/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Sara Laumann/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Steve

Odendahl/R8/USEPA/US@EPA, Elyana Sutin/R8/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 03/23/2012 09:05 AM Subject: Changes to MT Regional Haze Public Hearing Dates

Hi,

I wanted you all to know, as soon as possible, that we had to change the dates for the public hearings in Montana for the Regional Haze proposed action. We realized that we have to ensure that following a public hearing that the comment period remains open for at least 30 additional days. Due to the deadline for signing our final action, we could not allow more than 60 days for public comment, so we have moved the hearing dates to May 1st in Helena and May 2nd in Billings. We will be in the same locations. However, the large room at the library in Helena is not available until 1:30 pm, so the public hearing will be held from 2-5:30 pm and 6:30-9:00 pm. The hours for the Billings hearing are the same as before. Sorry for the change.

These changes will be reflected in the notice that is published in the Federal Register .

Monica S. Morales, Unit Chief Air Quality Planning Unit Air Program (8P-AR) U.S. EPA Region 8 1595 Wynkoop Street Denver, CO 80202-1129 phone (303) 312-6936 fax (303) 312-6064
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE AUDITED
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF TELECOMMUNICATIONS INCOME FUND IX, L.P. AS OF DECEMBER
31, 1999, AND THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1999, AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                         135,796
<SECURITIES>                                   300,014
<RECEIVABLES>                                  382,027
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                         775,597
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               1,593,434
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          403,465
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   1,189,969 <F1>
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                         0
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                         0
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1> Net Assets
</FN>


</TABLE>
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 Energy

###### Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

          - [Docket No. RP01-125-000]

Take notice that on November 30, 2000, Iroquois Gas Transmission System, L.P. (Iroquois) tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Second Revised Sheet No. 4A, with an effective date of January 1, 2001.

Iroquois states that, pursuant to Part 154 of the Commission's regulations and Section 12.1 of the General Terms and Conditions of its tariff, it is filing Twenty-Sixth Revised Sheet No. 4 to reflect the GRI surcharge for calendar year 2001, which the Commission approved in an order issued on September 19, 2000 in Docket No. RP00-313.

Iroquois states that copies of its filing were served on all jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.

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). Comments and protests may be filed electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site at http://www.ferc.fed.us/​efi/​doorbell.htm.

David P. Boergers,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00-31431  Filed 12-18-00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
##### 



EXHIBIT 32
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (i)
    
    the Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d), as applicable, 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.
 Dated:  March 28, 2008
    /s/  SALLY FRAME KASAKSSally Frame KasaksChief Executive Officer and
Chairman of the Board
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Executive Officer) Dated:  March 28, 2008
    /s/  MICHAEL L. HENRYMichael L. HenrySenior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer and Secretary
Pacific Sunwear of California, Inc.
(Principal Financial Officer)
From: "Stephen Mandel" <StephenM@spectragases.com> To: John Schakenbach/DC/USEPA/US@EPA Cc: Joe Elkins/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA Date: 04/10/2008 02:57 PM Subject: PGVP
John, It was interesting to see the comments. First off, Spectra Gases Inc is very suppo rtive of the EPA’s efforts to assure the quality of gases being sold as EPA Protocol. Spectra would, of course, prefer that the program be funded totally by EPA but we understand the constraints and are prepared to pay our fair share. The comments about IS O 17025 are noted, but if EPA was to require ISO 17025 certification of an EPA Protocol Gas manufacturer it would force the small companies out of the market. In checking with our quality people the cost to hire an outside consultant (if you are a small co mp any yo u wouldn’t have the internal staff) to prepare the documentation necessary would probably be in the $40,000 to $50,000 range. This is, of course, a one time fee but these documents do require updating on a continual basis. Next the company has to h ire the certification agency (A2LA). This may cost $15

- 20,000. This is for the initial period and then again every three years. There would then be periodic audits that will cost in the neighborhood of $5,000/year. As to the proposed cost ($6,000 to $7,000 / year), any company that is producing Protocols has to have an investment that is in excess of $500,000 in equipment for blending and analysis, in standards, and in cylinders and valves. So an increase of 1.5% is nothing (other than a sm ok escreen). Howeve r, if as has been suggested there are some companies manufacturing Protocols that do not utilize SRMS or NTRMs then indeed the minimal cost of the PGVP program ma y indeed be a big cost to them. John, the importance of US EPA Protocol Gases being of known q uality is most important. The utility industry bases many of their decisions on what these gases are telling them. Federal and State Agencies use EPA Protocol Gases to evaluate the quality of the air that we all breathe. Do we want this data to be suspect because we don’t know with any certainty the quality of the standards that are being used? Stephen B. Mandel, QEP Spectra Gases Inc
908

- 252

- 9300 ext 6218
#### MOUNTAIN TOWNSITE COMPANY v. J. C. HALL et al.

No. 6678.

Supreme Court of Texas.

June 19, 1934.

E. S. J. Whitehead, of San Antonio, for plaintiff in error.

Terrell, Davis, Hall & Clemens, of San Antonio, for defendants in error.

CKITZ, Commissioner.

This suit was filed in the district court of Bexar county, Tex., by Mountain Townsite Company, a corporation, against J. C. Hall and M. W. Terrell. Terrell holds an indebtedness against certain land in Bexar county, Tex., secured by deed of trust. The deed of trust contains the usual power of sale clause. *92The indebtedness is past due and unpaid. The trustee, Hall, was about to sell the land at the request of Terrell to satisfy the indebtedness. Mountain Townsite Compand seeks an injunction to prevent such sale on the same grounds involved in cause No. 6637, Mountain Townsite Company v. L. B. Coopev et al., 73 S.W.(2d) 90, this day decided by this court.

The district court refused the injunction after hearing. The Court of Civil Appeals [65 S.W.(2d) 1119] affirmed such judgment. The Supreme Court granted writ of error on application of Mountain Townsite Company on account of the moratorium question involved. The Supreme Court entered an order staying the sale pending adjudication of the case by it.

All law questions involved in this case have been determined in cause' No. 6637, supra. There is no necessity for further discussion here.

The judgments of the Court of Civil Appeals and district court are both affirmed, and all restraining orders heretofore issued by this court are hereby dissolved.

Opinion adopted by the Supreme Court ■Tune 19, 1934.
_______________________________________ __ Michigan Supreme Court 

# Order

Lansing, Michigan

March 24, 2008 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver 135673 Marilyn Kelly Maura D. Corrigan Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markman, PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Justices Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 135673 COA: 272217 Kent CC: 06-001490-FH; 06-000908-FC MARQUIS DESHAUNE JENKINS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 11, 2007 judgment of the Court of Appeals is consid ered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.

d0317 I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

March 24, 2008

Clerk
CoreStates Bank,
FC. 1-8-8-14
PO Box 7618
1345 Chestnut Street
Philadelphia PA 19101-7618
215 973 7397
Fax 215 973 7671

James P Richards
Vice President
Retailer and Apparel Group                                 August 5, 1997


Gary R. Klocek
Controller
JONES APPAREL GROUP
250 Rittenhouse Circle
Bristol, PA 19007

Dear Gary:

I take great pleasure in advising you that we have approved in favor of Jones
Apparel Group, the following credit facilities:
    
        A) A $150,000,000 discretionary fine of credit for the issuance of
           documentary trade letters of credit, This amount is gross of any risk
           participations.  Chase Manhattan Bank has advised us they plan to 
           risk participate 30%, or $45,000,000, of this facility.

        B) A $25,000,000 discretionary line of credit available for money 
           market loans and/or standby letters of credit.  There is currently
           outstanding a $100,000 standby LOC issued on behalf of Melru 
           Corporation.

        C) We have also reapproved facilities for foreign exchange and other 
           types of transactional business.

I'm currently reviewing our documentation file to ensure that everything is 
current and in good order.  I will notify you should I find anything to the
contrary.
    
We are pleased to play an important role in Jones Apparel's growth and very 
happy to have been favored with the opportunity to demonstrate our international
capabilities.  I trust we have met--or exceeded--your expectations.  We look 
forward to further opportunities to demonstrate our confidence in the Jones 
Apparel Group and its management.
    
Sincerely,

/s/ James P. Richards
    
cc: Wesley R. Card
### IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

Julio Leonal Ortiz Santos , ) a nd Margarita Sant os Juarez ) ) Plaintiff s , ) C.A. No. S23C

- 12

- 025 MHC ) v. ) ) Yolanda Reynolds and ) Gwendolyn Sma ck ) ) Defendant s
. ) )
ORDER DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT WITH

L EA VE TO TRANSFER

Now this 19 th day of February, 2024 , upon review of Plaintiffs ’ Peti tion for Writ of Ejectment and statements made by both parties to the Court on Friday, February 16, 2024, it is
obvious to the Court that this is a boundary line di spute requiring an action to quiet title. Actions to quiet title are with in the sole jurisdiction of the Court of C hancery and cannot be heard as Writ s of Ejectment in this Court

. 1 THEREFOR E, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Writ of Ejectment is DISMISSED in its entirety w ith l eave to t ransfer pursuant to 10 Del. C. §1902
.



### /s/ Mark H. Conner Mark H. Conner, Judge

cc: Prothonotary Dean Campbell, Esquire Yolanda Reynolds

1 Cook v. Deep Hole Creek Associates , 2021 WL 1561410 (Del. Super. April 21, 2021 ).