alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### TEXAS EMPLOYERS’ INS. ASS’N v. HENSON.

Motion No. 10155; 1331—5842.

Commission of Appeals of Texas, Section B.

July 19, 1932.

Eor former opinion, see 48 S.W.(2d) 970, which reversed 31 S.W.(2d) 669.

Harry P. Lawther, James P. Swift, and Wm. M. Cramer, all of Dallas, for plaintiff in error.

Grisham Brothers, of Eastland, for defendant in error.

DEDDX, J.

On original hearing we reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the cause for another trial because said judgment erroneously required plaintiff in error to redeem in a lump sum settlement its liability for the weekly payments allowed by the jury for a period of 401 weeks. (See 48 S. W. (2d) 970.) We could not reform the judgment and award defendant in error the weekly payments found by the jury because his brief contained no waiver of his right to insist upon another trial that the plaintiff in error redeem its liability for the weekly payments in a lump sum.

In the motion now filed defendant in error requests that this court grant a rehearing in order to enable him to waive his right of claim for compensation in a lump sum, and asks that the judgment be reformed so as to adjudge him the weekly payments for the compensation period fixed by the verdict of the jury.

Under authority of Maryland Casualty Co. v. Graham (Tex. Civ. App.) 38 S.W.(2d) 909, and Southern Surety Co. v. Shook (Tex. Civ. App.) 44 S.W.(2d) 425, the motion should he granted.

Our former judgment is hereby set aside and the judgment of the trial court will be reformed so as to adjudge a recovery in favor of defendant in error against plaintiff in error, Texas Employers’ Insurance Association, for the sum of $2,637.23, as accrued compensation for the period of 176 weeks, which includes $224.27 interest on such compensation, and for the additional sum of $255.13, the amount found by the jury for hospital fees and doctor bills, plus interest thereon, making a total of $2,892.36, with 6 per cent, interest thereon from July 8, 1932, and the further compensation of $13.71 per week for 225 weeks, beginning July 8, 1932, being the remainder of the compensation period of 401 weeks.

We recommend that defendant in error’s motion for rehearing be granted, our former judgment set aside, and the judgment of the trial court reformed as above indicated, and as reformed that the same be affirmed.

CURETON, C. J.

Motion for rehearing granted,' and judgments of the district court and Court of Civil Appeals reformed, and as reformed affirmed, as recommended by the Commission of Appeals.
CERTIFICATIONS

I, James B. Hovis, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Phlo Corporation and
Subsidiaries;

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

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this quarterly report, fairly present in all material
respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the
registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this quarterly report;

4. The registrant's other certifying officers and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a. designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b. evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and
procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this
quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c. presented in this quarterly report our conclusions about the effectiveness of
the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the
Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of
registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):

a. all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls
which could adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process,
summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrant's
auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b. any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrant's internal controls; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and I have indicated in this
quarterly report whether there were significant changes in internal controls or
in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to
the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with
regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 23, 2005

                                       /s/ James B. Hovis
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                       James B. Hovis
                                       Chief Executive Officer
                                       Principal Financial Officer
I .. 

SERVED: January 16, 2015 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

OFFICE OF HEARINGS 

WASHINGTON, DC 

IN THE MATTER OF 

DGW, Inc., d/b/a Melrose T-Top, Intl. 

DOCKET NO. FAA 2014-0546 

(Civil Penalty Action). 

ORDER OF DISMISSAL 

On January 9, 2015, the Federal Aviation Administration (hereinafter "FAA") and DGW, 

Inc. (hereinafter "Respondent") filed a Joint Motion to Dismiss these proceedings. 

14 C.F .R. § 13.215 states: "At any time before or during a hearing, an agency attorney 

may withdraw a complaint or party may withdraw a request for a hearing without the 

consent of the administrative law judge. If an agency attorney withdraws the complaint or 

a party withdraws the request for a hearing and the answer, the administrative law judge 

shall dismiss the proceedings under this subpart with prejudice." 

WHEREFORE, the within filed Motion to Dismiss having been read and considered, it is 

ORDERED as follows: 

1. This proceeding be and is hereby dismissed with prejudice. 

Richard C. Goodwin 

U.S. Administrative Law Judge 

Attachment - Service List 
SERVICE LIST -BY U.S. MAIL 

ORIGINAL & ONE COPY 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Avenue, S.W. 

Washington, DC 20591 

Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430 

Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2W10001 

ONE COPY 

Richard I. Williams, Respondent's Counsel 

Griffin Williams LLP 

501 W. State Street, Suite 203 

Geneva, IL 60134 

TEL: 630-457-1205 

FAX: 630-262-0644 

Christopher R. Stevenson, Complainant's Counsel 

Office of the Regional Counsel, AS0-7 

Southern Region 

1701 Columbia Avenue 

College Park, GA 30337 

TEL: 404-305-5200 

FAX: 404-305-5223 

The Honorable Richard C. Goodwin, Administrative Law Judge 

Office of Hearings, M-20 

U.S. Department of Transportation 

1200 New Jersey Avenue, S.E. (Ell-310) 

Washington, DC 20590 

TEL: 202-366-5121 Staff Assistant 

FAX: 202-366-7536 

Docket No. FAA-2014-0546 

(Civil Penalty Action) 

1 Service was by U.S. Mail. For service in person or by expedited courier, use the following address: Federal 

Aviation Administration, 600 Independence Avenue, S.W., Wilbur Wright Building-Suite 2Wl000, Washington, 

DC 20591; Attention: Hearing Docket Clerk, AGC-430. 

2
Exhibit 32.2



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 quarterly report of Energy Transfer Partners, L.P. (the Partnership) on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended May 31, 2005, as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, H. Michael Krimbill, President and Chief Financial Officer, 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 Partnership.
| | --- | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Date: July 11, 2005



/s/ H. Michael KrimbillH. Michael KrimbillPresident and Chief Financial Officer




---

|* | A signed original of this written statement required by 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 has been provided to and will be retained by Energy Transfer Partners, L.P.
|- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 173 (Friday, September 6, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 72837]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-20146]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 10853-027, 10853-030]

Otter Tail Power Company; Notice of Effectiveness of Withdrawal 
of Temporary Variance Request and Application for Amendment of License

    On May 3, 2022, Otter Tail Power Company (licensee) filed a 
temporary variance request and on December 2, 2022, the licensee filed 
an application for non-capacity amendment of the license for the 3.238-
megawatt Otter Tail River Hydroelectric Project No. 10853. On August 
14, 2024, the licensee filed a notice of withdrawal of the temporary 
variance and amendment application. The project is located on the Otter 
Tail River in Otter Tail County, Minnesota.
    No motion in opposition to the notice of withdrawal has been filed, 
and the Commission has taken no action to disallow the withdrawal. 
Pursuant to Rule 216(b) of the Commission's Rules of Practice and 
Procedure,\1\ the withdrawal of the application became effective on 
August 29, 2024, and this proceeding is hereby terminated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 18 CFR 385.216(b) (2023).

    Dated: August 30, 2024.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2024-20146 Filed 9-5-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          60,814
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  721,118
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               988,044
<PP&E>                                       2,601,096
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,630,881
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,615,540
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        98,898
<OTHER-SE>                                       5,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,630,881
<SALES>                                      4,073,030
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,344,730
<CGS>                                        2,768,996
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                4,057,229
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             275,480
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 41,646
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             40,046
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    40,046
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT

AIR AND RADIATION MANA GEMENT ADMINISTRATION

RESPONSE TO COMMENTS

for the

PUBLIC HEARING held on August 4, 2010 in BALTIMORE, MD related to amendments to Regul ation .06 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19

Purpose of Hearing : The purpose of the public hearing was to allow for public comment on the Department's proposal to ame nd Regulation .06 under chapter COMAR 26.11.19 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Specific Processes.

The proposed amended regulation adopts th e requirements of the Environmental Protection Agency Control Techniques Guidel ines (CTG) for large appliance coating operations.

Date and Location : The public hearing was held on August 4, 2010 at 10 a.m. at the Department of the Environment, 1800 Wa shington Boulevard, 1st Floor Aeris Conference Room, Baltimore, Maryland 21230.

Attendance : Deborah Rabin, Regulations Coordina tor, Air and Radiation Management Administration, served as Hearing Officer.

Statement : The Department's statement was s ubmitted into the record by Husain Waheed, Senior Regulatory and Compliance Engineer of the Re gulation Development

Division of the Air and Radi ation Management Administ ration, Department of the

Environment.

Comments and Responses : Comments were received from American Coatings Association (ACA). The written commen t received has been summarized and the Department's response is given below.

COMMENT: There is only one standard for VOC emissions of 2.3 lbs/gal in the Maryland regulation. The CTG has 8 specialty coating standards differentiated by the method of drying. For consistency, Maryla nd should adopt the specialty coating standards. There are also valid technologica l reasons for the 8 categories of specialty coating standards.

RESPONSE: Under Maryland’s current COMAR 26.11.19.06 there has been only one existing standard of 2.8 lbs/gal VOC for large appliance coat ing operations. EPA’s 453/R-07-004 CTG for Large Appliance Coati ng provides 8 coating standards ranging from 2.3 lbs/gal to 3.5 lbs/gal VOC. Seven of the eight standards in the CTG are above Maryland’s existing 2.8 lbs/gal VOC standar d, and would constitute backsliding of thecurrent regulation. In accordance with Secti on 172(e) of the Clean Air Act, regulations that have been adopted into the State Impl ementation Plan cannot be amended to be less stringent than the existing requirements. EPA develops CTGs as guidance to assist states in determining RACT for those sources. St ates can follow the CTGs or adopt more

restrictive standards. In li ght of the fact that there was only one source in Maryland manufacturing large ap pliances and that this source ha s since closed, Maryland decided to adopt the more restrictive 2.3 lbs/gal VOC coating standard to be more protective of Maryland’s air quality.

L:\AQPlanning and Monitoring\Regulation Development Division\CTGs\26-11-19-06 Large Appliance Coating\Comments received\COMAR 26.11.19.06 RTC 08-20-10.doc
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>                      <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS                    9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1999              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                              SEP-30-1999              SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                      3,655,000                3,696,000
<SECURITIES>                                        0                        0
<RECEIVABLES>                              23,606,000               23,733,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0                        0
<INVENTORY>                                15,822,000               16,368,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                           48,123,000               50,266,000
<PP&E>                                     24,641,000               19,925,000
<DEPRECIATION>                              4,741,000                1,696,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                            119,607,000              125,459,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                      73,083,000               35,049,000
<BONDS>                                             0                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0                        0
<PREFERRED>                                         0                        0
<COMMON>                                       10,000                   10,000
<OTHER-SE>                                 25,226,000               35,676,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>              119,607,000              125,459,000
<SALES>                                   188,907,000              170,996,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                          188,907,000              170,996,000
<CGS>                                     126,853,000              108,153,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                              62,054,000              167,104,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                            (472,000)                (403,000)
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0                        0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          3,375,000                1,791,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                          (10,402,000)                2,504,000
<INCOME-TAX>                              (1,163,000)                1,130,000
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                       (9,239,000)                1,374,000
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0                        0
<CHANGES>                                           0                        0
<NET-INCOME>                              (9,239,000)                1,374,000
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (1.09)                     0.16
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (1.09)                     0.16



</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-6238
MICHAEL HARRISON O'NEAL, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus WILLIAM C. FLANNARY; JERRY BROADWATER, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Samuel G. Wilson, District Judge. (CA-96-45-R) Submitted: July 23, 1996 Decided: July 31, 1996 Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and MICHAEL, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.Michael Harrison O'Neal, Appellant Pro Se. James Rutledge Henderson, IV, HENDERSON & DE COURCY, P.C., Tazewell, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying relief on his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (1988) complaint. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm on the reasoning of the district court. O'Neal v. Flannary , No. CA-96-45-R (W.D. Va. Feb. 8, 1996). We deny Appellant's motion for appointment of counsel and dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
#### C. H. CROW et al., Appellants, v. DOZIER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, Appellee.

No. 7957.

Court of Civil Appeals of Texas. Austin.

Feb. 7, 1934.

Rehearing Denied Feb. 21, 1934.

T. Wade Potter, of Littlefield, and Robert A. Sowder, of Lubbock, for appellants.

White, Taylor & Gardner, of Austin, for ap-pellee.

BAUGH, Justice.

This appeal is by W. E. Riley, one of the defendants in the trial court, from an interlocutory order of the trial court overruling his plea of privilege to be sued in Lamb county, the county of his residence. Suit was on a paving assessment against appellant’s property in the town of Littlefield, Lamb county, Tex., and for foreclosure of a mechanic’s lien executed thereon by appellant, payable in Travis county, Tex. The same issues are presented in this appeal that were presented in Smith v. Dozier Construction Company, 66 S. W.(2d) 744, decided by this court on November 23, 1933; and in Stehlick v. Dozier Construction Company, 68 S.W.(2d) 284, this day decided; and were decided adversely to appellant’s contention herein. A further discussion of them here would be but a repetition, and for the reasons stated in the above cited cases, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 236 (Thursday, December 7, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 76613]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-31184]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Army


Corps of Engineers; Grant of Partially Exclusive License

AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), announcement is made 
of a prospective partially exclusive license of U.S. Patent No. 
5,202,034 entitled ``Apparatus and Method for Removing Water from 
Aqueous Sludges,'' issued April 13, 1993.

DATES: Written objections must be filed not later than February 5, 
2001.

ADDRESSES: United States Army Corps of Engineers Research and 
Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory, 
ATTN: CEERD-RV-1 (Ms. Sharon Borland), 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-
1290.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sharon Borland, ATTN: CEERD-RV-1; 
(603) 646-4735, FAX (603) 646-4448; Internet 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10437871627f7e3e5c3e527f627c717e7450756274733e65637173753e71627d693e7d797c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="396a51584b56571775177b564b5558575d795c4b5d5a174c4a585a5c17584b544017545055">[email protected]</span></a>; U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 
Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering 
Laboratory, 72 Lyme Road, Hanover, NH 03755-1290

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Patent No. 5,202,034 entitled ``Apparatus 
and Method for Removing Water from Aqueous Sludges,'' issued April 13, 
1993. The concrete armor unit was invented by Dr. C. James Martel. The 
United States of America owns the rights to this technology. The United 
States of America as represented by the Secretary of the Army intends 
to grant a partially exclusive license for all fields of use, in the 
manufacture, use, and sale of the patented technology in the 
territories and possessions of the U.S.A. and Canada, and in the field 
of use in the pulp and paper industry globally, to 3131807 Canada, 
Inc., a consortium comprising two companies: Le Groupe STEICA, Inc. of 
Sherbrooke, Quebec, and BESTH20, Inc. of La Prairie, Quebec, with 
principal offices at 170, rue des Pivoines, Le Prairie, Quebec, Canada 
J5R 5J6. Pursuant to 37 CFR 404.7(b)(1)(i), any interested party may 
file a written objection to this prospective exclusive license 
agreement.

Richard L. Frenette,
Counsel.
[FR Doc. 00-31184 Filed 12-6-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>