alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 211 (Thursday, October 31, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Page 86848]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25260]


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

POSTAL SERVICE


Product Change--Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail, and USPS 
Ground Advantage[supreg] Negotiated Service Agreement

AGENCY: Postal Service <SUP>TM</SUP>.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: The Postal Service gives notice of filing a request with the 
Postal Regulatory Commission to add a domestic shipping services 
contract to the list of Negotiated Service Agreements in the Mail 
Classification Schedule's Competitive Products List.

DATES: Date of required notice: October 31, 2024.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sean C. Robinson, 202-268-8405.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The United States Postal Service[supreg] 
hereby gives notice that, pursuant to 39 U.S.C. 3642 and 3632(b)(3), on 
October 21, 2024, it filed with the Postal Regulatory Commission a USPS 
Request to Add Priority Mail Express, Priority Mail & USPS Ground 
Advantage[supreg] Contract 507 to Competitive Product List. Documents 
are available at www.prc.gov, Docket Nos. MC2025-124, K2025-122.

Sean C. Robinson,
Attorney, Corporate and Postal Business Law.
[FR Doc. 2024-25260 Filed 10-30-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7710-12-P
(March 22, 2004)

#### In the Matter of Hyath B. Gross, an Attorney, Respondent. Committee on Professional Standards, Petitioner.

[774 NYS2d 836]

*943Per Curiam.

Respondent was admitted to practice by this Court in 1955 and maintains a residence in the Town of Lake George, Warren County.

Petitioner and respondent each move to confirm in part and disaffirm in part a Referee’s report. We grant and deny the motions, each in part, in accordance with the findings of professional misconduct set forth in this decision. We find respondent guilty of failure to deposit a client’s funds in an identifiable attorney escrow account *(see*Code of Professional Responsibility DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [b] [1] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7); 1200.46 (b) (1)]), failure to produce escrow account records *(see*DR 9-102 [i] [22 NYCRR 1200.46 (i)]), failure to maintain complete records of clients’ funds *(see*DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7]; DR 9-102 [c], [d] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7); 1200.46 (c), (d)]), neglect of legal matters entrusted to him *(see*DR 6-101 [a] [3] [22 NYCRR 1200.30 (a) (3)]), failure to communicate with clients *(see*DR 1-102 [a] [5] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5)]) and failure to cooperate with petitioner in its investigation *(see*DR 1-102 [a] [5], [7] [22 NYCRR 1200.3 (a) (5), (7)]).

Respondent was suspended from practice in 1983 *(Matter of Gross,*91 AD2d 1145 [1983]), reinstated to practice in 1987 *(Matter of Gross,*128 AD2d 999 [1987]), censured in 2002 *(Matter of Gross,*291 AD2d 579 [2002]), and has been issued several letters of caution and admonition by petitioner. In view of respondent’s misconduct and his disciplinary history, we conclude that respondent should be suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective 30 days from the date of this decision.

Mercure, J.P., Peters, Spain, Carpinello and Mugglin, JJ., concur. Ordered that petitioner’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted, except as to Charge I, and its motion to disaffirm is denied; and it is further ordered that respondent’s motion to confirm the Referee’s report is granted with respect to Charges VII, VIII and IX, and his motion to dis-affirm is denied, except as to Charge I; and it is further ordered that respondent is found guilty of the professional misconduct as specified in Charges II, III, TV? Y VI and X of the petition; and it is further ordered that respondent is suspended from the practice of law for a period of two years, effective 30 days from the date of this decision and until further order of this Court; and it is further ordered that respondent, while so suspended from practice, is commanded to desist and refrain from the practice of law in any form either as principal or as agent, clerk or employee of another; he is forbidden to appear as an attorney *944and counselor-at-law before any court, judge, justice, board, commission or other public authority, or to give to another an opinion as to the law or its application or any advice in relation thereto; and it is further ordered that respondent shall comply with the provisions of this Court’s rules regulating the conduct of suspended attorneys *(see*22 NYCRR 806.9).
#### JOHN C. JOHNSTON *against*JOHN B. CHESSON, Jr., AND OTHERS.

Under the statute of distributions in this State, Rev. Code, chap. 64, sections 1 and 2, representation is not admitted among collateral kindred after brother’s and sister’s children, and, consequently, uncles and aunts of an intestate, take to the exclusion of the children of a deceased uncle.

Cause removed from the Court of Equity of Washington county>

The bill is filed by the administrator of Otis W. Ohesson, and prays the instruction of the Court as to his duty in the administration of the estate. He sets.out, that his intestate left him surviving, an uncle, one Nathaniel C. Chesson, an aunt; Sarah Ohesson, who has since married one Swain, and a cousin, John B. Chesson, junior, son of a deceased uncle. The defendants, in this suit, are the uncles and aunts, and the said John B. Chesson, jr., who claims an equal share with his uncle and aunt in the estate of the intestate! The *147cause, being set for hearing upon bill and answer, was transferred to this Court by consent.

*II. A. Gilliam,*for the plaintiff.

*Winston, Jr.,*for the defendants.

Battle, J.

The bill is filed for the sole purpose of obtaining the decision of the Court upon the question, whether in the distribution of the personal estate of an intestate, the son of a deceased uncle- can, by right of representation, claim an equal share with an uncle and aunt, who are the nearest of kin to the intestate. This question is settled by the express words of our act of distributions, which says, that in the case of an intestacy, *“*if there be neither widow nor children, nor any legal representative of children, the estate shall be distributed equally to every of the next of kin of the intestate, who are in equal degree, and to those who legally represent them,” with a *proviso,*“ that in the distribution of the estate, there shall be admitted among collateral kindred, no representative after brothers’ and sisters’ childrensee Rev. Code, chap. 64, sections 1 and 2. There was a similar provision in the English statute of distributions of the 22d Charles II, and it has always been held that among the uncles and aunts and other more distant kindred of an intestate, there could be no right of representation allowed; 2 Williams on Executors, 930. In the rules of the descent of real estate, the right of representation is indefinite, as well among collateral as lineal kindred ; see Rev. Code, chap. 38, sec. 1, rule 3. This has always been the law, both in England and in this State, (see *Clement*v. *Cauble,*2 Jones’ Eq. 82; *Haynes*v. *Johnston, 5*Jones’ Eq. 124,) and in consequence of it, the real estate of án intestate will often devolve, in part, upon a person, who hannot take any portion of his personal estate. The law, up-<bn the subject, has been so long and so firmly established, t-hat it is unnecessary for us to attempt an explanation of the Reasons upon which it was originally foundedi

Feb Curiam, Decree accordingly.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<CIK>                         0001065801
<NAME>                        DERMATOLOGY SYSTEMS, INC.
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     U.S. Dollar

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-mos
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              Feb-28-1999
<PERIOD-START>                                 Mar-1-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   Feb-29-2000
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                         36,900
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  0
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               36,900
<PP&E>                                         0
<DEPRECIATION>                                 0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 36,900
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          5,000
<BONDS>                                        0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       200
<OTHER-SE>                                     31,900
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   36,900
<SALES>                                        0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               0
<CGS>                                          0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               4,309
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (4,309)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            0
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (4,309)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  0



</TABLE>
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 Acropolis Precious Metals, Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-Q for the
period ended June 30, 2008 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
(the "Report"), I, Shiming Yu, 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.

|                      |                        
|--------------------- | -----------------------
|Date: August 13, 2008 | /s/ Shiming Yu         
|                      | Shiming
    Yu         
|                      | Chief Financial Officer
|                      |                        

---
#### In the Matter of the Application of Seacrest Farms, Inc., Petitioner, for a Certiorari Order against Holton V. Noyes, Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Markets of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

September 27, 1937.

*Harry L. Marcus,*for the petitioner.

*Milo R. Kniffen [Robert G. Blabey*of counsel], for the respondent.

Schirick, J.

This is an application for a certiorari order to review a determination of the Commissioner of Agriculture and Markets denying the petitioner’s application for a milk license.

The respondent has appeared specially and raised the objection that this petition cannot be entertained because the proceeding was not commenced within the thirty-day period provided for in section 258-d of the Agriculture and Markets Law, as amended by chapter 409 of the Laws of 1937.

*370This objection must be sustained. Assuming that the thirty-day period commenced to run on the day when the petitioner received notice of the denial of his application, on July seventeenth, the time to institute review proceedings expired on August sixteenth. On that date the order to show cause with which'this application was commenced was not even signed. Certainly, the mere preparation of a petition, unaccompanied by any official action or notice to the respondent, cannot be considered the institution of a proceeding to review by certiorari.

The application is denied, with ten dollars costs.
```

[Congressional Bills 106th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 449 Referred in House (RFH)]

  1st Session
                                 S. 449

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             June 17, 1999

                 Referred to the Committee on Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
  To direct the Secretary of the Interior to transfer to the personal 
   representative of the estate of Fred Steffens of Big Horn County, 
     Wyoming, certain land comprising the Steffens family property.

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

SECTION 1. TRANSFER OF STEFFENS FAMILY PROPERTY.

    (a) Conveyance.--Subject to subsection (b) and valid existing 
rights, the Secretary of the Interior shall issue, without 
consideration, a quitclaim deed to Marie Wambeke of Big Horn County, 
Wyoming, the personal representative of the estate of Fred Steffens, to 
the land described in subsection (c).
    (b) Reservation of Minerals.--All minerals underlying the land 
described in subsection (c) are reserved to the United States.
    (c) Land Description.--The land described in this subsection is the 
parcel comprising approximately 80 acres and known as ``Farm Unit C'' 
in the E\1/2\NW\1/4\ of Section 27 in Township 57 North, Range 97 West, 
6th Principal Meridian, Wyoming.
    (d) Revocation of Withdrawal.--The withdrawal for the Shoshone 
Reclamation Project made by the Bureau of Reclamation under Secretarial 
Order dated October 21, 1913, is revoked with respect to the land 
described in subsection (c).

            Passed the Senate April 19, 1999.

            Attest:

                                                    GARY SISCO,

                                                             Secretary.
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1

<S>                                     <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                           6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                       DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                          JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                            JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                        1015
<SECURITIES>                                     0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    0
<ALLOWANCES>                                     0
<INVENTORY>                                      0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                              4020
<PP&E>                                         320
<DEPRECIATION>                                3240
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                4020
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                         1500
<BONDS>                                          0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                            0
<PREFERRED>                                1000000
<COMMON>                                    405000
<OTHER-SE>                               (50100000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  4020
<SALES>                                        438
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               438
<CGS>                                          275
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                 4379
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                 0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  0
<INCOME-TAX>                                     0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (4216)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                  0
<CHANGES>                                        0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (4216)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    0


</TABLE>
#### STEPHEN MUNDAY v. ROBERT HENRY.

Where several defendants are sued in assumpsit, and they severed in their pleas, one who had a verdict in his behalf, was fairly entitled to have the attendance of witnesses, summoned specially for him, taxed in his bill of costs, although the jury found for him upon a point in the case, which made it unnecessary to enquire as to the matter to which they were summoned.

This was a motion as to the taxation of the costs, before his Honor, Judge Dick, at the Spring Term, 1854, of Haywood Superior Court.

The suit in which the motion was made, was an action of as-sumpsit brought by the plaintiff against R. M. Henry, William L. Henry, and the defendant, Robert, for work and labor done in building a mill. The defendants pleaded severally “ General issue, payment, and set off.” The jury rendered a verdict against R. M. Henry, and W. L. Henry, but in favor Robert Henry.

Several witnesses had been summoned for Robert Henry, who spoke chiefly of the value of the work which inured to the advantage of the other defendants, but as the jury found for him on tho ground that he did not assume, were not material for him. Before the jury, the plaintiff insisted throughout upon the joint liability of Robert for the value of the work and in his defence he contended that he was not liable at all, but if liable, he was only liable to the amount proved by the witnesses in question. The motion was to strike the attendance of the witness from the costs taxed for defendants.

Upon the argument of this rule, the plaintiff contended that the defendant had fraudulently summoned these witnesses, to entitle the other defendants to get the benefit of this evidence without becoming liable for it.

His Honor refused to correct the bill of costs as insisted upon by the plaintiff, and the plaintiff appealed.

*488
      *N. W. Woodfin,*and *J. W. Woodfin,*for plaintiff.

*Gfaither,*and *J. Baxter,*for defendant.

Pearson, J.

As it is has turned out, it was unfortunate for tbe plaintiff that he made Robert Henry, sr., a defendant, but as he was sued, he had reason to suppose the plaintiff would be able to offer some evidence tending to make out a cause of action against him. As the defendants severed in their pleas, he had a right to summon witnesses in his behalf, and as a verdict was given in his favor, he had a right to have t.iose witnesses taxed as part of his costs. *s*There is no proof set out in the case, to support the suggestion of fraud, and there is no suggestion that the defendant, for the purpose of vexation, summoned more than two witnesses as to each fact. There is no error.

Judgment affirmed.
Today in Energy

July 6, 2012

Monthly coal- and natural gas-fired generation equal for first time in April 2012

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration, Electricity Data Browser.

Download CSV Data

Recently published electric power data show that, for the first time since EIA began collecting the data, generation from natural

gas-fired plants is virtually equal to generation from coal-fired plants, with each fuel providing 32% of total generation. In April 2012,

preliminary data show net electric generation from natural gas was 95.9 million megawatthours, only slightly below generation from

coal, at 96.0 million megawatthours.

The 2011 and 2012 data shown above are preliminary and are subject to change (final 2011 data will be released this fall, and 2012

data will be revised at that time). Preliminary data are derived from a survey of a sample of large power plants, and final data come

from a census of all power plants. For 2010, the difference between preliminary and final net generation data from all sources was

0.1%.

As shown in the chart above, there are strong seasonal trends in the overall demand for electric power. In April 2012, demand was

low due to the mild spring weather. Also in April, natural gas prices as delivered to power plants were at a ten-year low. With warmer

summer weather and increased electric demand for air conditioning, demand will increase, requiring increased output from both coaland natural gas-fired generators.

The mix of fuels used to generate electricity—and specifically the competition between natural gas and coal—is dependent on several

factors, many of which have been discussed in previous Today in Energy articles: decreasing coal share of generation, increasing

coal stockpiles, rising coal exports, effect of natural gas prices, and natural gas consumption by sector.

Monthly coal- and natural gas-fired generation equal for first time in Apri... http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=6990

1 of 1 8/31/2015 8:46 AM
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
 
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                          26,645
<SECURITIES>                                    25,243
<RECEIVABLES>                                   15,264
<ALLOWANCES>                                       846
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                69,329
<PP&E>                                          15,603
<DEPRECIATION>                                   3,270
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  91,390
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           31,552
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            31
<OTHER-SE>                                      59,679
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    91,390
<SALES>                                          9,056
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                11,358
<CGS>                                              866
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                    2,988
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                49,978
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  50
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (40,804)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       340
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (41,144)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (41,144)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (1.39)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (1.39)
        

</TABLE>
SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE
 ProLogis California LLC Skechers USA,
     1.
    
    Effective March 1, 2006, the Premises shall be increased by 1,391 square feet
to a revised approximate size of 763,228 square feet.2.
    
    Monthly Base Net Rent shall continue as follows:
 Period
    
    Monthly Base RentMarch 1, 2006 - May 31, 2006
    
    $
    217,520.00June 1, 2006 - November 30, 2008
    
    $
    236,601.00December 1, 2008 - May 31, 2011
    
    $
    251,865.00
 3.
    
    Effective March 1, 2006, Tenants proportionate share of the Building and the
Project shall be 100%.4.
    
    Other Terms & Conditions: Except as expressly amended by this Second
Amendment to Lease, all other terms and conditions of the Lease shall remain in full
force and effect.
  LANDLORD
    
    
    
    TENANTPROLOGIS CALIFORNIA I LLC
    
    
    
    SKECHERS USA, INC.By:
    
    ProLogis Trust, its Managing MemberBy
    
    /s/ W. Scott Lamson
    
    
    
    By
    
    /s/ David WeinbergName: W. Scott Lamson
    
    
    
    
    
    Name: David WeinbergTitle: Senior Vice President
    
    
    
    
    
    Title: Chief Operating Officer