alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 212 (Friday, November 1, 2024)]
[Notices]
[Pages 87412-87413]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-25415]


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

INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION

[Investigation Nos. 731-TA-672-673 (Fifth Review)]


Silicomanganese From China and Ukraine

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 duty orders on 
silicomanganese from China and Ukraine would be likely to lead to 
continuation or recurrence of material injury to an industry in the 
United States within a reasonably foreseeable time.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The record is defined in Sec.  207.2(f) of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (19 CFR 207.2(f)).
    \2\ Commissioner David S. Johanson dissenting with respect to 
the order on silicomanganese from Ukraine.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Background

    The Commission instituted these reviews on November 1, 2023 (88 FR 
75029) and determined on February 5, 2024, that it would conduct full 
reviews (89 FR 13375, February 22, 2024). Notice of the scheduling of 
the Commission's reviews and of a public hearing to be held in 
connection therewith was given by posting copies of the notice in the 
Office of the Secretary, U.S. International Trade Commission, 
Washington, DC, and by publishing the notice in the Federal Register on 
May 1, 2024 (89 FR 35240). The Commission conducted its hearing on 
September 5, 2024. All persons who requested the opportunity were 
permitted to participate.

[[Page 87413]]

    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 October 28, 2024. The views of the 
Commission are contained in USITC Publication 5554 (October 2024), 
entitled Silicomanganese from China and Ukraine: Investigation Nos. 
731-TA-672-673 (Fifth Review).

    By order of the Commission.

    Issued: October 28, 2024.
Lisa Barton,
Secretary to the Commission.
[FR Doc. 2024-25415 Filed 10-31-24; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7020-02-P
FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T OCT OBER 26, 2011 J OHN LEY CLERK [DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 1 0- 12 53 3

D. C. Dock etNo. 2 :0 7- cv -0 19 28 -RDP LAURA FAUGHT, STEVEN FAUGH T, on be ha lf o f th em se lv es an d a ll ot he rs si m il arl y si tu at ed , Pl ai nt iff s- App el le es JOHN HOW E, et al ., In te rv en or s- Pl ai nt iff s, MIR IAM CHAPON, JOHN CHAPON, In te rv en or -Pl ai nt iffsApp el la nt s,

ve rs us AMERIC AN HOME SHIELD CORPORATION, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee, TODD PETT ITT, SHARON LEE, In te res te d- Part ie s- App el la nt s.App eal fro m th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof Al ab am a (Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, CARNES, Ci rcu itJu dg e, an d S ANDS, Dis tri ct * Ju dg e. PER CURI AM: Co ns ol id at edObject in g C la ss Mem be rs (th e “ ob

jecto rs ”) ap pe al th e d is tri ct

co ur t’s o rd er d en y in g a n a wardof a tt orne y s’ fees an d c os ts

. Eve n p ut ti ng asi de ti m el in es s i ss ue s p res en te d b y th e App el le es , th e ob jecto rs are en ti tl edto att orne y s’ fees on ly in t he ev en t t ha t t he y can sh ow ei th er (1 ) th atth ey

co nf erre d s om e b en efi t o n t he cla ss or ( 2) th atth ey subs ta nt ia ll y im pr ov edth e se tt le m en t u nd er co ns id erat io n. Se e, e.g ., Usel to n v . Comme rc ia l Lo vel ac e, In c. , 9 F.3 d 8 49 , 85 5 (1 0t h C ir. 1 99 3) ; Ci ty of Detr oi t v. Gr in ne ll

Co rp . , 56 0 F .2d10 93 , 10 98 (2d Cir . 19 77 ). The b ur de n i s o n t he ob jecto rs to sh ow o ne of th es e cri te ria ha s b een m et . The d is tri ctco ur t, i n awell reas on edop in io n,

co nc lu de d t ha t the y

ha d n ot carr ie d t ha t b ur de n.

Honora ble W. L ouis Sands, United States District J udg e for the Middle District of Geor g ia, * sitti ngby designation. 2Thi s co ur t re vi ews su ch fin di ng s fo r ab us e o f di sc ret io n. Hai ti an Refu ge e

Ctr. v. Mee se , 79 1 F .2d14 89 , 14 96 (11 th Cir . 19 86 ). The d is tri ctco ur t l ai d o ut in de ta il ho w th e o bjec to rs ’ cl ai m s wer e b as edon sp ecu la ti on th atis un su pp or te d b y th e rec or d. We agre e wit h t he se fin di ng s; th eref or e, we co nc lu de th atth e d is tri ct

co ur t d idno t ab us e it s d is cret io n a ndaffi rm th e d en ia l o f at to rn ey s’ fees an d c os ts

. AFFIR MED.

3
**Exhibit 21**

 

**Lime Energy Co.**

Subsidiary Companies

 

ADVB Acquisition Corp.

Applied Energy Management, Inc.

Applied Energy Management Lighting, LLC

GES-Port Charlotte, LLC

Kapadia Energy Services, Inc.

Landmark Electrical and Mechanical Services, LLC

Landmark Services Company of California, LLC

Landmark Services Company of Florida, LLC

Landmark Services Company of Georgia, LLC

Landmark Services Company of North Carolina, LLC

Landmark Services Company, LLC

LEAD I Waikoloa Village, LLC

Lime Energy Asset Development, LLC

Lime Energy Co. New York, Inc.

Lime Energy Consulting and Technical Services, LLC

Lime Finance Inc.

Lime Midwest Inc.

Maximum Performance Group, Inc.

Parke Industries Incorporated

PLI Acquisition Corp.

Texas Energy Products, Inc.

 

----
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 06-6197

R. J. KEYSTONE, Petitioner - Appellant, versus GENE M. JOHNSON; GARY L. BASS; JAMES SISK; MICHAEL J. COMBS, Respondents - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:05-cv-00366-jct) Submitted: October 20, 2006 Decided: November 7, 2006 Before MOTZ and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. R. J. Keystone, Appellant Pro se. William W. Muse, Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: R. J. Keystone seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000). A certificate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000). A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district court is likewise debatable. Miller-El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v. Lee , 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Keystone has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
```

[Congressional Record Volume 154, Number 161 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[House]
[Page H10828]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

                     PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLUTIONS

  Under clause 3 of rule XII,

       Mr. SMITH of New Jersey introduced a bill (H.R. 7271) for 
     the relief of Alyssa Chaconis; which was referred to the 
     Committee on the Judiciary.

                          ____________________
```
### IN THE

TENTH COURT OF APPEALS

No. 10

- 13

- 00241

- CV

BETTY JANE GOSSETT

, Appellant

v.

THE ESTATE OF DONA L EE STOVALL,

DECEASED, LISA JAMIE SON AS PERSONAL

REPRESENTATIVE OF TH E ESTATE OF

DONA LEE STOVALL, ET AL

, Appellee s

From the County Court at Law No 2

Johnson County, Texas

Trial Court No. P200719377

MEMORANDUM OPINION

The Clerk of th is Court notified Appellant by letter dated September 25, 2013 that

the original filing fee of $1 7 5.00 was past due a nd that unless Appellant paid the filing

fee or filed an indigence affidavit within fourteen days, the appeal would be dismissed

without further notification

. More than fourteen days have passed, and Appellant has

not paid the filing fee or filed an indig ence affidavit.Gossett v. Estat e of Stovall Page 2

The Clerk ’s letter also notified Appellant that the Court had not received the

docketing statement and warned Appellant that i f the docketing statement was not filed

within 14 days from the date of the letter, th is appeal w ould be dismissed without

further notification. More than fourteen days have passed, and t he docketing statement

has not been filed.

This appeal is dismissed. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.3( b, c); 1 0 TH T EX

. A PP

. (W ACO )

L OC

. R. 5(c).

REX D. DAVIS

Justice

Before Chief Justice Gray,

Justice Davis, and

Justice Scoggins

Appeal dismissed

Opini on delivered and filed October 24, 2013

[CV06 ]
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6255

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

CHRISTOPHER LEE GRIFFIN,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, at 

Charlotte. Robert J. Conrad, Jr., District Judge. (3:14-cr-00082-RJC-DSC-4; 3:21-cv00513-RJC)

Submitted: August 24, 2023 Decided: August 29, 2023

Before QUATTLEBAUM and HEYTENS, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit 

Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Christopher Lee Griffin, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 1 of 2
2

PER CURIAM:

Christopher Lee Griffin seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on 

his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(B). A certificate of 

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional 

right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable jurists could find the 

district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. See Buck v. 

Davis, 580 U.S. 100, 115-17 (2017). When the district court denies relief on procedural 

grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is 

debatable and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. 

Gonzalez v. Thaler, 565 U.S. 134, 140-41 (2012) (citing Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473,

484 (2000)).

We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Griffin has not made 

the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the 

appeal. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are 

adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process.

DISMISSED

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6255 Doc: 5 Filed: 08/29/2023 Pg: 2 of 2
<PAGE>

                                  EXHIBIT 11

                            AMSOUTH BANCORPORATION
         STATEMENT REGARDING COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS PER COMMON SHARE

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>

                                                                Three Months Ended         Year Ended
                                                                    December 31            December 31
                                                               --------------------   ---------------------
                                                                1997          1996     1997           1996
                                                               --------------------------------------------
                                                                   (In thousands except per share data)
<S>                                                          <C>           <C>       <C>           <C>
Net income..............................................     $ 58,892      $ 51,615  $226,167      $182,676
                                                              =======       =======   =======       =======

Average shares of common stock outstanding..............       80,577        84,411    82,039        84,906
                                                              =======       =======   =======       =======

Earnings per common share...............................     $   0.73      $   0.61  $   2.76      $   2.15
                                                              =======       =======   =======       =======

Diluted average shares of common stock outstanding......       81,392        85,058    82,746        85,843
                                                              =======       =======   =======       =======

Diluted earnings per common share.......................     $   0.72      $   0.61  $   2.73      $   2.13
                                                              =======       =======   =======       =======

</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 21**

**ALEXANDER’S, INC.**

**SUBSIDIARIES OF REGISTRANT**

 

731 Commercial Holding LLC

731 Commercial LLC

731 Office One Holding LLC

731 Office One LLC

731 Office Two Holding LLC

731 Office Two LLC

731 Residential Holding LLC

731 Residential LLC

731 Restaurant LLC

731 Retail One LLC

Alexander’s Department Stores of Brooklyn, Inc.

Alexander’s Department Stores of New Jersey, Inc.

Alexander’s Kings Plaza, LLC

Alexander’s of Kings, LLC

Alexander’s Management LLC

Alexander’s of Brooklyn II LLC

Alexander’s of Brooklyn, Inc.

Alexander’s of Flushing, Inc.

Alexander’s of Rego Park II, Inc.

Alexander’s of Rego Park III, Inc.

ALX of Paramus, LLC

Alexander’s Personnel Providers, Inc.

Alexander’s Rego Park Center, Inc.

Alexander’s Rego Shopping Center, Inc.

Alexander’s Restaurant LLC

Kings Parking, LLC

Kings Plaza Lender LLC

Ownreal Inc.

Rego Park Comercial LLC

Rego Park Residential LLC

Sakraf Wine & Liquor Store, Inc.
#### JOSEPHUS BAUM et als. v. THE CURRITUCK SHOOTING CLUB.

*Appeal*— Statement *of the Case.*

1. No appeal lies to this Court, unless a judgment has been entered. So, where the Court intimated an opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, and directed the issues to be found for the defendant, but entered no judgment, the appeal will not be entertained.

2. In such ease, the Court will remand the record, in order that the judgment may be entered.

3. The statement of the case on appeal should clearly point out the alleged error with sufficient certainty for the appellate court to understand them and so apply its rulings.

Civil action for the recovery of land, tried before *Shepherd, Judge,*and a jury, at Fall Term, 1885, of the Superior Court of Currituck County.

*218His Honor directed a verdict for the defendant on the evidence, and the plaintiffs appealed.

The facts appear fully in the opinion.

No counsel for the plaintiffs.

*Mr. John Gatling*for the defendant.

MbRRXMON, J.

Upon examination of the record, we find that on the trial, “at the close of the evidence, the court being of the opinion that the plaintiff could not recover, directed the issue to be found in the negative.” There was a motion for a new trial, which was denied. It seems probable that it was intended that a final judgment should be entered in favor of the defendants, but none appears. The plaintiff appealed, as the record shows, from the order denying the motion for a new trial. It is obvious that an appeal did not lie from this order.

As we can see that it was probably intended that a proper judgment should be entered, which was omitted by inadvertence, we deem it proper to remand the case, to the end that such judgment may be entered.

As the appeal may come before us again, we suggest that the case settled upon appeal is obnoxious to serious objection. No errors are formally assigned, nor does it appear with reasonable certainty, if at all, upon what grounds the court based its instructions to the jury. There was much evidence, documentary and oral. Its application and bearings are not pointed out, nor do the same appear from its nature and effect. The alleged errors must be assigned with such precision as that this court can certainly see them, and apply the law. Otherwise, the judgment will be affirmed.

Let the case be remanded. It is so ordered.

Remanded.
EXHIBIT 12.2

               CERTIFICATION OF SENIOR VICE-PRESIDENT, ACCOUNTING
       OF OCEAN RIG ASA PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT


I, Erling Meinich-Bache, certify that:

     1. I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F/ A of Ocean Rig ASA;

     2. Based on my knowledge, this 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 report;

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

     4. The company's other certifying officer 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 company and have:

     a)   designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
          disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our
          supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the
          company, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us
          by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
          which this annual report is being prepared;

     b)   evaluated the effectiveness of the company's disclosure controls and
          procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
          effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures as of the end
          of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

     c)   disclosed in this report any change in the company's internal control
          over financial reporting that occurred during the period covered by
          the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably
          likely to materially affect, the company's internal control over
          financial reporting; and

     5. The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on
our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
company's auditors and the audit committee of the company's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):

     (a)  All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
          operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
          reasonably likely to adversely affect the company's ability to record,
          process, summarize and report financial information; and

     (b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
          employees who have a significant role in the company's internal
          control over financial reporting.

Date: March 30, 2004



/s/ Erling Meinich-Bache
------------------------------
Erling Meinich-Bache
Senior Vice President, Accounting


                                       80
**Exhibit 32.1**

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEFEXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER****PURSUANT TO****18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS CREATED BY****SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF2002**

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Alabama National BanCorporation (“Alabama National”) on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30,2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), John H. Holcomb, III, Chief Executive Officer of Alabama National, and William E. Matthews, V, Chief Financial Officer of Alabama National, eachhereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of such officer’s 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 Alabama National. |
|--|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: August 12, 2003                              |   |   |   |
|-----------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ JOHN H. HOLCOMB, III                            |   |   |        |
|                                                     |   |   |   |
| **John H. Holcomb, III****Chief Executive Officer** |   |   |   |

 

|                                                  |   |   |   |
|-------------------------------------------------------|--------|--------|--------|
| /s/ WILLIAM E. MATTHEWS, V                            |   |   |        |
|                                                       |   |   |   |
| **William E. Matthews, V****Chief Financial Officer** |   |   |   |

The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§ 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of Alabama National, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing. 

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to Alabama National andwill be retained by Alabama National and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.