alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 182 (Thursday, September 19, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 76869]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-21399]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 701-TA-365-366 and 731-TA-734-735 (Fifth Review)]


Certain Pasta From Italy and Turkey

Determinations

    On the basis of the record \1\ developed in the subject five-year 
reviews, the United States International Trade Commission 
(``Commission'') determines, pursuant to the Tariff Act of 1930 (``the 
Act''), that revocation of the antidumping and countervailing duty 
orders on certain pasta from Italy and Turkey would be likely to lead 
to continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on March 1, 2024 (89 FR 
15217) and determined on June 4, 2024 that it would conduct expedited 
reviews (89 FR 59160, July 22, 2024).
    The Commission made these determinations pursuant to section 751(c) 
of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1675(c)). It completed and filed its 
determinations in these reviews on September 13, 2024. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5544 (September 2024), 
entitled Certain Pasta from Italy and Turkey: Investigation Nos. 701-
TA-365-366 and 731-TA-734-735 (Fifth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: September 13, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-21399 Filed 9-18-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
*OPINION ISSUED FEBRUARY 20, 2009*

#### CAMBRIDGE CENTER LLC VS. DIVISION OF TOURISM

(CC-08-0511)

Wendel B. Turner, Attorney at Law, for claimant.

Ronald R. Brown, Assistant Attorney General, for respondent.

PER CURIAM:

This claim was submitted for decision based upon the allegations in the Notice of Claim and respondent's Amended Answer.

Claimant seeks to recover $8,013.05 for an invoice that was not submitted by the required due date for reimbursement due to a billing error. The amount represents that proportion of the increase costs of utility and custodial services in excess of the base year for the space occupied by the tenant.

In its Amended Answer, respondent admits the validity of the claim in the amount of $7,638.08, and states that there were sufficient funds expired in that appropriate fiscal year from which the invoice could have been paid. Claimant has agreed to accept payment in the amount of $7,638.08.

In view of the foregoing, the Court is of the opinion to and does make an award to claimant in the amount of $7,638.08.

Award of $7,638.08.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 97-7743

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

BERNARDO SEGUNDO CALLEJA, a/k/a Beni,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, District Judge.

(CR-86-28-R, CA-97-270-R)

Submitted: August 31, 1998 Decided: January 26, 1999

Before MURNAGHAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges, and HALL, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Gerald Chester Ruter, Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellant. Thomas

Jack Bondurant, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Roanoke,

Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Appellant seeks to appeal the district court's order denying

his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994 & Supp. 1998).

We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. United States v. Calleja, Nos. CR-86-28-R; CA-97-270-

R (W.D. Va. Nov. 4, 1997). We dispense with oral argument because

the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional

process.

DISMISSED
<PAGE>




                                                                 Exhibit 18
                                                                 ----------

                             PREFERABILITY LETTER 
                      ON DISCRETIONARY ACCOUNTING CHANGE


Pacific Bell
140 New Montgomery
San Francisco, CA 94105

We are  providing this letter for  inclusion as an  exhibit to your  Form 10-K
filing pursuant to Item 601 of Regulation S-K.

We  have read  management's justification  for change  in accounting  from the
"amortization" revenue recognition method to the "point of publication" method
contained in  Pacific Bell's Form 10-K  for the year ended  December 31, 1996.
Based on our reading of the data and discussions with the Company officials of
the business judgment and business planning factors relating to the change, we
believe management's justification is reasonable.  Accordingly (in reliance on
management's  determination  regarding  elements  of  business  judgment   and
business  planning),  we concur  that  the  new  adopted accounting  principle
described  above is preferable in  Pacific Bell's circumstances  to the method
previously applied.


/s/ COOPERS & LYBRAND L.L.P.
San Francisco, California
February 27, 1997
#### BLACKSTOCK v. STATE.

No. 21055.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

May 8, 1940.

Hubert T. Faulk, of Mineóla, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

BEAUCHAMP, Judge.

The record in this case is before us without statement of facts or- bills of exception. Furthermore, it contains the court’s charge to the jury and a motion for a new trial, but there is no jury verdict; no judgment entered thereon and no notice of appeal. Consequently, this court has no jurisdiction of any matter involved.

The appeal is dismissed.
# C_2022005EN.01000201.xml

| 5.1.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 5/2 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

5.1.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 5/2

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10556 – BELLIS / KKR / JAJA)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 5/02)

On 20 December 2021, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10556. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32021M10556. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
Exhibit (32)



SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION



In connection with the Annual Report of Owens Corning (the Company) on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2003 (the
Report), I, David T. Brown, Chief Executive 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) | Information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.
|--- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                       
|-----------------------
|                       
|/s/ David T. Brown     
|                       
|Chief Executive Officer



February 20, 2004
Court of Appeals

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA,____________________

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order:

A20D0075. MECCO MCKINNEY v. VANCE LAUGHLIN, WARDEN.

Following a jury trial where he was represented by counsel, Mecco McKinney

was convicted of two counts of felony murder, among other offenses. McKinney

filed an application for writ of habeas corpus, which the trial court denied on August

12, 2013. On September 11, 2019, McKinney filed the instant application for

discretionary review of the judgment.

 Under our Constitution, the Supreme Court has appellate jurisdiction over

“[a]ll cases in which a sentence of death was imposed or could be imposed.” Ga.

Const. of 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (8). Because a penalty of death may be

imposed for the crime of felony murder, jurisdiction over this application appears to

be proper in the Supreme Court. See OCGA § 16-5-1 (c); Neal v. State, 290 Ga. 563,

572 (722 SE2d 765) (2012) (Hunstein, C. J., concurring); see also State v. Thornton,

253 Ga. 524, 524 (1) (322 SE2d 711) (1984) (directing this Court to transfer “all

cases in which either a sentence of death or of life imprisonment has been imposed

upon conviction of murder”); accord Saxton v. Coastal Dialysis & Med. Clinic, Inc.,

267 Ga. 177, 178 (476 SE2d 587) (1996) (the Supreme Court has the ultimate

responsibility for determining appellate jurisdiction). Additionally, the Supreme

Court has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over all casesinvolving habeas corpus. See

Ga. Const. 1983, Art. VI, Sec. VI, Par. III (4). Accordingly, this application is hereby

TRANSFERRED to the Supreme Court for disposition.

October 02, 2019
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk’s Office, Atlanta,____________________

I certify that the above is a true extract from

the minutes of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court

hereto affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

10/02/2019
# C_2022111EN.01000101.xml

| 8.3.2022 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 111/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

8.3.2022

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 111/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.10620 – GIP / SSE / OTPP / SCOTIA GAS NETWORKS)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2022/C 111/01)

On 1 March 2022, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

| — | in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the ‘Competition policy’ website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10620. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32022M10620. EUR-Lex is the online point of access to European Union law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

---
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 Homeland Security

          - [Internal Agency Docket No. FEMA-4779-DR; Docket ID FEMA-2024-0001]

# AGENCY:

Federal Emergency Management Agency, DHS.

# ACTION:

Notice.

# SUMMARY:

This notice amends the notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa (FEMA-4779-DR), dated May 14, 2024, and related determinations.

# DATES:

This amendment was issued July 19, 2024.

# FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dean Webster, Office of Response and Recovery, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street SW, Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2833.

# SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

The notice of a major disaster declaration for the State of Iowa is hereby amended to include Public Assistance for the following areas among those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the event declared a major disaster by the President in his declaration of May 14, 2024.

Clarke, Harrison, Pottawattamie, Ringgold, Shelby, and Union Counties for Public Assistance (already designated for Individual Assistance).

Crawford County for Public Assistance.

The following Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Numbers (CFDA) are to be used for reporting and drawing funds: 97.030, Community Disaster Loans; 97.031, Cora Brown Fund; 97.032, Crisis Counseling; 97.033, Disaster Legal Services; 97.034, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA); 97.046, Fire Management Assistance Grant; 97.048, Disaster Housing Assistance to Individuals and Households In Presidentially Declared Disaster Areas; 97.049, Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance—Disaster Housing Operations for Individuals and Households; 97.050 Presidentially Declared Disaster Assistance to Individuals and Households—Other Needs; 97.036, Disaster Grants—Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters); 97.039, Hazard Mitigation Grant.

Deanne Criswell,

Administrator, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

[FR Doc. 2024-21191 Filed 9-17-24; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 9111-23-P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                          14,833
<SECURITIES>                                    10,894
<RECEIVABLES>                                    3,736
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                30,025
<PP&E>                                          21,050
<DEPRECIATION>                                   6,139
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  45,200
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           12,758
<BONDS>                                         10,718
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       101,054
<OTHER-SE>                                    (82,585)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    45,200
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 5,700
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   12,969
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 321
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (7,195)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (7,195)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (7,195)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.48)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.48)


</TABLE>
June 17, 2014

Mr. Terry J. Tyner

Vice President

Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.

4805 East Falcon Drive

Mesa, Arizona 85215

Dear Mr. Tyner :

This letter is to inform you that we are unable to process your request for an exemption from

§ 91.1605 of Title 14, Code of F ederal Regulations (14 CFR). It explains why we can not

process your request and what you should do in the next 30 days.

Why We Can No t Process Your Request

We entered your July 1, 2014 , exemption request on behalf of Flight Trails Helicopters, Inc.

into the public docket (No. FAA

- 20 14

- 0460 ), but we are unable to process your request any

further. The information you sent does no t comply with the requirements of § 11.81 (copy

enclosed). For us to consider the request any further, you must send us all of the following:

• The specific section or sections of 14 CFR from which you seek relief, the extent of the

relief you seek, and the reason you seek relief.

• The reasons why granting the request would be in the public interest; that is, how it would

benefit t he public as a whole.

• The reasons why the exemption would no t adversely affect safety or how the exemption

would provide a level of safety at least equal to that provided by the rule from which you

seek an exemption.

• Any additional information, views, or arguments available to support your request.

• The specific reasons why you need to exercise the privileges of your exemption outside

the United States.

What You Should Do

If you want us to process your request any further, you must send the information described

earlier to reach us within 30 days. We will consider the docket on your request open until we2

receive this required information from you. Please note that § 11.63(d) requires you to send

your petition for exemption at least 120 days before the proposed effective date of the

exemption.

If We Do No t Hear From You

If we do not hear from you within 30 days, we will close the docket without notifying you

further. If you have any questions or require additional time, you may call (202) 267

- 9677.

S incerely,

Michelle Ferri t to

Acting Manager, Airmen and

Airspace Rules Division

Enclosure3

Project No.: A FS

- 14

- 364

- E

Project Officer: _______________

ARM

- 10 1 : KJone s: 7/14/2014 :Doc# 40057

ARM

- 1/100/104:Program Offic e AFS

- 200

MR TERRY J TYNER

VIC E PRESIDENT

FLIGHT TRAILS HELICOPTERS INC

4805 EAST FALCON DRIVE

MESA ARIZONA 85215
#### PATTERSON v. STATE.

No. 15520.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas.

Jan. 18, 1933.

R. L. Graves, of Brownfield, for appellant.

Lloyd W. Davidson, State’s Atty., of Austin, for the State.

MORROW, P. J.

The offense is theft, a misdemeanor; penalty assessed at a fine of $25 and confinement in the county jail for ten days.

The position taken by the appellant that chapter 157, Aets of the Fortieth Legislature, Reg. Sess. (Vernon’s Ann. P. C. art. 1422), deprived the county court of concurrent jurisdiction with the justice court over cases charging the theft of property of the value of $5 or less is not regarded as sound. It is thought that the concurrent jurisdiction of the county court, as stated in article 56, C. O. P., was not repealed by the legislative act mentioned.

The appellant’s position that the information charging him with the offense of theft is insufficient in failing to allege that the property was “fraudulently” taken is deemed correct. See article 1410, P. C. 1925, also Haney v. State, 117 Tex. Cr. R. 664, 37 S.W.(2d) 746, and cases cited. The same vice appearing in the complaint, it is the duty of this court to reverse the judgment of conviction and order a dismissal of the prosecution, which is accordingly done.
Exhibit 21-A
OTTER TAIL CORPORATION
Subsidiaries of the RegistrantMarch 1, 2005   CompanyState ofOrganization Otter Tail Energy Services Company, Inc. MinnesotaOverland Mechanical Services, Inc. MinnesotaOtter Tail Assurance Limited                 CaymanIslands     Varistar Corporation MinnesotaNorthern Pipe Products, Inc. North DakotaVinyltech Corporation ArizonaT.O. Plastics, Inc. MinnesotaSt. George Steel Fabrication, Inc. UtahDMI Industries, Inc. North DakotaBTD Manufacturing, Inc. MinnesotaShoreMaster, Inc. MinnesotaGalva Foam Marine Industries, Inc. MissouriShoreline Industries, Inc. MinnesotaDMS Health Technologies, Inc. North DakotaDMS Imaging, Inc. North DakotaDMS Leasing Corporation* North DakotaMidwest Construction Services, Inc. MinnesotaAerial Contractors, Inc. North DakotaMoorhead Electric, Inc. MinnesotaLynk3 Technologies, Inc MinnesotaAC Equipment, Inc. MinnesotaVentus Energy Systems, Inc. MinnesotaFoley Company MissouriChassis Liner Corporation MinnesotaE. W. Wylie Corporation North DakotaIdaho Pacific Holdings, Inc DelawareIdaho-Pacific Corporation IdahoIdaho-Pacific Colorado Corporation DelawareAWI Acquisition Company Limited Prince Edward Island, CanadaAgraWest Investments Limited Prince Edward Island, CanadaMidwest Information Systems, Inc. MinnesotaMidwest Telephone Company MinnesotaOsakis Telephone Company MinnesotaThe Peoples Telephone Co. of Bigfork MinnesotaData Video Systems, Inc. MinnesotaMIS Investments, Inc. Minnesota
* Inactive