alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
FEDERAL REGISTER: 56 FR 5061 (February 7, 1991)

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

AGENCY: Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)

43 CFR Part 4

Special Rules Applicable to Surface Coal Mining Hearings and Appeals

ACTION: Correction 

In rule document 91-1336 beginning on page 2139 in the issue of Tuesday, January 22, 1991, make the following 

corrections: 

 1. On page 2140, in the first column, in the first paragraph, in the ninth line from bottom of the paragraph, "52 FR 

29528" should read "52 FR 39528". 

 2. On the same page, in the same column, in the last complete paragraph, in the fourth line "request" should read, 

"requests". 

 3. On the same page, in the second column, in the last paragraph, in the sixth line, "1264", should read "30 U.S.C. 

1264(a)". 

 Sec. 4.1109 [Corrected] 

 4. On page 2142, in the third column, in Sec. 4.1109(a), in the first line, "part" should read "party. In the same 

paragraph in the ninth line "of" should read "at". In the same paragraph in the last line, "filed" should read "field". 

 5. On page 2143, in the second column, in the table of contents, in the third line "Burden" should read "Burdens". 

 Sec. 4.1360 [Corrected] 

 6. On the same page in the same column, in Sec. 4.1360(a), in the sixth line, "or" should read "on". In the same 

column, in Sec. 4.1360(b), in the third line "right" should read "rights". 

 Sec. 4.1363 [Corrected] 

 7. On the same page in the third column, Sec. 4.1363(e), in the fourth line, "was" should read "as". 

 Sec. Sec. 4.1370-4.1379 [Corrected] 

 8. On page 2145, in the first column," Sec. Sec. 4.1370-4.1739 [Amended]" should read "Sec. Sec. 4.1370-4.1379 

[Removed]". 

BILLING CODE 1505-01-D
COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

NUMBER 13-11-00347-CV

JOHN T. MCGUIRE, ET AL., Appellants,

v.

RAUL IBARRA AND MELESIO C. VASQUEZ, Appellees.

NUMBER 13-11-00555-CV

LOOP COLD STORAGE MANAGEMENT COMPANY 

AND LOOP COLD STORAGE, MCALLEN, LP, Appellants,

v.

RAUL IBARRA AND MELESIO C. VASQUEZ, Appellees.

On appeal from the 389th District Court 

of Hidalgo County, Texas.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam

Appellants have filed an unopposed motion to dismiss the appeal in cause 

numbers 13-11-00555-CV and 13-11-00347-CV on grounds that the parties have 

compromised and resolved all matters between them. Appellants request that this Court 

dismiss these appeals.

The Court, having considered the documents on file and the appellants’

unopposed motion, is of the opinion that the motion should be granted. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 42.1(a). The appellants’ unopposed motion to dismiss the appeals in cause numbers 

13-11-00555-CV and 13-11-00347-CV is hereby granted, and the appeals are hereby 

DISMISSED. Costs will be taxed against appellants. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.1(d) 

("Absent agreement of the parties, the court will tax costs against the appellant."). 

Having dismissed the appeal at appellants= request, no motion for rehearing will be 

entertained, and our mandate will issue forthwith.

PER CURIAM

Delivered and filed the 

5th day of January, 2012.
# Official Journal C 108/2012

| | ISSN 1977-091X
  doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.108.eng |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 108 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5514 April 2012 |

ISSN 1977-091X

doi:10.3000/1977091X.C_2012.108.eng

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 108

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5514 April 2012

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 108/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1) | 1 |
| 2012/C 108/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2) | 3 |
| 2012/C 108/03 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6401 — Waterland/Alychlo/Omega Pharma) (1) | 5 |
| 2012/C 108/04 | Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6492 — SCOR/MAF/Essor JV) (1) | 5 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 108/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (1)

1

2012/C 108/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the TFEU — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (2)

3

2012/C 108/03

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6401 — Waterland/Alychlo/Omega Pharma) (1)

5

2012/C 108/04

Non-opposition to a notified concentration (Case COMP/M.6492 — SCOR/MAF/Essor JV) (1)

5

---

| | IV   Notices |
| --- | --- |
| | NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 108/05 | Euro exchange rates | 6 |

IV   Notices

NOTICES FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2012/C 108/05

Euro exchange rates

6

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2012/C 108/06 | Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6516 — Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group/RBS Aviation Capital Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1) | 7 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2012/C 108/06

Prior notification of a concentration (Case COMP/M.6516 — Sumitomo Mitsui Financial Group/RBS Aviation Capital Group) — Candidate case for simplified procedure (1)

7

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I to the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 223A/8 Ju

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 223A |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 658 June 2022 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 223A

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 658 June 2022

---

| Contents | page |
| --- | --- |
| | V   Announcements |
| | ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES |
| | Court of Justice of the European Union |
| 2022/C 223 A/01 | Call for applications – Director of Human Resources and Personnel Administration (Grade AD 14 or AD 15) | 1 |

Contents

page

V   Announcements

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

Court of Justice of the European Union

2022/C 223 A/01

Call for applications – Director of Human Resources and Personnel Administration (Grade AD 14 or AD 15)

1

---

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
# Official Journal C 258/15 J

| | ISSN 1977-091X |
| --- | --- |
| Official Journal
  of the European Union | C 258 |
| | |
| English edition | Information and Notices | Volume 5915 July 2016 |

ISSN 1977-091X

Official Journal

of the European Union

C 258

English edition

Information and Notices

Volume 5915 July 2016

---

| Notice No | Contents | page |
| --- | --- | --- |
| | II   Information |
| | INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 258/01 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  ) | 1 |
| 2016/C 258/02 | Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  ) | 10 |

Notice No

Contents

page

II   Information

INFORMATION FROM EUROPEAN UNION INSTITUTIONS, BODIES, OFFICES AND AGENCIES

European Commission

2016/C 258/01

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  1
  )

1

1

2016/C 258/02

Authorisation for State aid pursuant to Articles 107 and 108 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union — Cases where the Commission raises no objections (
  2
  )

2

10

---

| | V   Announcements |
| --- | --- |
| | PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY |
| | European Commission |
| 2016/C 258/03 | State aid — Luxembourg — State aid SA.38945 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) — Alleged aid to McDonald’s — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  ) | 11 |

V   Announcements

PROCEDURES RELATING TO THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE COMPETITION POLICY

European Commission

2016/C 258/03

State aid — Luxembourg — State aid SA.38945 (2015/C) (ex 2015/NN) — Alleged aid to McDonald’s — Invitation to submit comments pursuant to Article 108(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (
  1
  )

1

11

---

| | |
| --- | --- |
| | (1)   Text with EEA relevance |
| | (2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty |

---

(1)   Text with EEA relevance

1

(2)   Text with EEA relevance, except for products falling under Annex I of the Treaty

2

| EN | |
| --- | --- |

EN
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

                            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 Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report of Allis-Chalmers
Corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31,
2002 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), I, Munawar H. Hidayatallah, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman
of the Company, certify, to my knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as
adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of
the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(2) The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



                        BY: /S/ MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH
                           ---------------------------
                             MUNAWAR H. HIDAYATALLAH
                             CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


                                      -20-
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM
THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF AMERICAN CONSUMERS, INC. FOR THE YEAR
ENDED JUNE 3, 2000 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-03-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-03-2000
<CASH>                                       1,287,539
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  140,593
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                  1,659,588
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,141,193
<PP&E>                                       2,956,857
<DEPRECIATION>                               2,424,512
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,673,538
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        1,122,863
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        83,562
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,388,804
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,673,538
<SALES>                                     25,618,564
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                            25,618,564
<CGS>                                       19,682,468
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               19,682,468
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             6,019,545
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              55,206
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (72,769)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (22,232)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (50,537)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (50,537)
<EPS-BASIC>                                      (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (0.06)


</TABLE>
#### State, Plaintiff, vs. Belfor, Defendant.

*April 12*

June *3, 1924.*

*Criminal law: Rape: Cross-examination of complaining witness: Qiiestions certified for review.*

Questions certified to this court after a verdict of guilty of statu- . tory rape, as to whether the trial court correctly sustained objections to interrogating the complaining witness concerning sexual relations during a designated period with men other than the defendant, are not reached or determined, as upon the record presented no error is found, p. 170.

Questions certified by the municipal court of Milwaukee county: A. C. Backus, Judge.

*Rulings affirmed.*

For the plaintiff there were briefs by the *Attorney General*and *George A.*Shaughnessy, district attorney of Milwaukee county, and oral argument by *Roland J. Steinle,*assistant district attorney.

For the defendant the cause was submitted on the brief of *Julius O. Roehl*of Milwaukee.

Eschweiler, J.

The defendant was tried for the crime of statutory rape. The complaining witness,, under fourteen years of age, testified to sexual intercourse with the defendant three several times and that the defendant was the first man with whom she had such intercourse.

On cross-examination and as then stated, for the sole purpose of testing her credibility as a witness, she was asked as to whether or not during the period between the second and third times of such alleged intercourse she had sexual relations with other men. The trial court sustained the objections of the district attorney to such questions. After the verdict of guilty by the jury and at defendant’s request the trial court certified two questions covering such rulings to this court to have it determined if such were correct. ,

Without reaching or determining the question of whether such proposed line of cross-examination of a complaining. *171witness in an action for statutory rape is ever permissible, we dispose of the present case by holding that upon the record as here presented we find no error. For that reason the rulings by the trial court are affirmed.

*By the Court.*— Upon the questions certified the rulings are affirmed and the record remanded for further proceedings.
<PAGE>   1



                                                                      EXHIBIT 23


               CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration statements of
Energen Corporation on Forms S-8 and S-3 (File No. 2-89855), Form S-3 (File No.
333-00395), Form S-3 (File No. 333-11239) and Forms S-8 (File No. 33-27869, File
No. 33-46641, File No. 33-48504, and File No. 33-48505) of our report, dated
October 23, 1997, on our audits of the consolidated financial statements of
Energen Corporation as of September 30, 1997 and 1996, and for the years ended
September 30, 1997, 1996, and 1995, which report is incorporated by reference in
this Annual Report on Form 10-K.




Coopers & Lybrand L.L.P.
Birmingham, Alabama
December 17, 1997
\f. 

### The. SPifo, c*£ JjImlCl, l&rftL //)s&n £A FILED IN 14th COURTOFAPPEALS HOUSTON TEXAS ^ DEC 10 2015

CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE CLERK VMThL i& h)tn/ . 

### 4- Appall Amis h/2ial jj± dim /la feCMnhoA (7, aoij^ dAflAlhunil kntnJ &

P-lOSfL 'ihaoo m\oAxrs,i ifWbelL. &VLa ^LoO /TlaJ- Z^yU^ &yn. 

### Jn/jAI PoAQA/Uih <Q"lr * TTbUl ML jLsJiiJ S}jy\a//A~.f~ ^AOMlt 

## JOLa JJud^rrdyLcm Cffl 3o cLajuul. fez /kdhj ^hfrZJla OsybJ /zjy)nI/aTMt jjl l/n /ho&J) cd stAdilLxzvL^J ^DTno ijl Aln€i^^Ji E/isLat. 9. /LiJjtvAv /lo/aAimaA., £/yx?///tnif /ZahA tka fiaund ifc> ^/2amJ~a^n



### <J, at>rl£jui /2)nh*Lj zt££i- c j7)Lul &^d) faTL^d1 frpoi &/Zi* S&mjp jU^jl /OtiajiMJ U<'&- U^ ^ PtoaJtzJ <n/)/)jrs* goo Tt.a 

### Jjbuj <g D&C. "7 s2d)/^* 7& DiiJ-n/r /T/^rJr^ £/}/[/e£Tc>n. fto .Tic.

2-GLafLfLD* M-fS-oO 7A?~C\/
/?%4&!iL LOhat i^r PDatoarL hJjtik Zfu^iJm 

### UUt PAjlUjcttl gILc-iaIa. d_& /hud- /focrt-rt^h> rrtfiLL^\s£SLarf&2^ Zlor \yhhJomj2AJi.. 3. P/)flUQ/Lf. 

## f. /fa&uA 'ituA G&u^J-p2sl6sviJ~ 

## 'lJu2 £hfLk tE- /TUJm ±&. t£pJL&(± /to/pjuAiuf* ^Deo 7, Zml'o 

## /n^p b/i^l 6^sasD a &u.le 2 PV$&n

SLC 'f*M CAse: m-is-GGT2_g~c\f "T^tnne^5<?e Colony, T~y,<~l

V) \» NS) t> JSG*?}-! k

•3 

## M5 

# £*•

.,;.} O U (M O M J 1 1
# Third District Court of Appeal

State of Florida

Opinion filed May 4, 2016.

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.

________________

No. 3D14-2989

Lower Tribunal No. 02-15545C

________________



### Ernest M. Flowers

, Petitioner,

vs.



### The State of Florida

, Respondent.

A Case of Original Jurisdiction

-- Habeas Corpus.

Ernest M. Flowers

, in proper person.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General

, for respondent.

Before LAGOA, SALTER and FERNANDEZ, JJ.

FERNANDEZ, J.

This Court issued an opinion on July 8, 2015 denying Ernest M. Flowers’

amended petition for a writ of habeas corpus. See Flowers v. State

, 2015 WL

4111336 (Fla. 3d DCA 2015). The opinion contained an order directing Flowers toshow cause why he should not be prohibited from filing any further pro se

pleadings in this Court concerning his conviction and sentence imposed in case

number F02-015545C. Flowers’ response to the show cause order offers no new

argument, information, or other basis to persuade this Court to allow him to

continue filing further pro se documents in this Court. This Court thus concludes

that Flowers has not demonstrated good cause to justify further filings of appeals,

petitions, motions, and other pleadings in this Court.

Therefore, the Clerk of the Court of the Third District Court of Appeal shall

refuse to accept further pro se filings related to case number F02-015545C, unless

such filings have been reviewed and signed by an attorney who is a licensed

member of the Florida Bar in good standing. Any such further and unauthorized

pro se filings by Flowers will subject him to sanctions, including the issuance of

written findings forwarded to the Florida Department of Corrections for

consideration by it for disciplinary action, pursuant to section 944.279(1), Florida

Statutes (2004).

Order issued.

2
Motion Granted, Memorandum Opinion filed October 18, 2018 Withdrawn, 

Appeal Reinstated, and Order filed November 13, 2018. 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-18-00727-CV

____________

SONIA BARBOZA, Appellant

V.

MORRELL MASONRY SUPPLY, INC., Appellee

On Appeal from the 129th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2017-20565

ORDER

On October 18, 2018, this court issued an opinion dismissing this appeal for 

want of prosecution for failure to pay for the clerk’s record. On October 30, 2018, 

appellant filed a motion stating that she had paid for the clerk’s record. On November 

6, 2018, the clerk’s record was filed. Appellant’s motion is granted. 

This court’s opinion filed October 18, 2018 is withdrawn, and our judgment 

of that date is vacated. The appeal is ordered reinstated. 
The clerk’s record reflects that this is an appeal from a judgment signed May 

9, 2018. Appellant filed a timely post-judgment motion extending appellate 

timetables. The notice of appeal was due September 7, 2018. See Tex. R. App. P.

26.1. Appellant, however, filed the notice of appeal on September 17, 2018, a date 

within 15 days of the due date for the notice of appeal. A motion for extension of 

time is necessarily implied when the perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of 

its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did 

not file a motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal. While an extension may 

be implied, appellant is obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to 

support the late filing. See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 

S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we reinstate the appeal and ORDER appellant to file a proper 

motion to extend time to file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date 

of this order. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.3; 10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with 

this order, we will dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM

Panel consists of Justices Donovan, Wise, and Jewell.
Exhibit No. 10(24)



                     Description Of Employment Arrangements
                             For Gilbert K. Gailius




The Board of Directors of American Biltrite Inc. (the "Company") recently
approved employment arrangements for Gilbert K. Gailius, formerly the Company's
Chief Financial Officer. These arrangements are effective as of January 1, 2000.
Under these arrangements, the Company has agreed to employ Mr. Gailius for a
period of two years as its Vice President of Strategic Planning at a salary of
$150,000 per year. In his new position, Mr. Gailius continues to participate in
the Company's annual bonus program at a level 50% lower than the level at which
he participated in that program for the Company's 1999 fiscal year. Mr. Gailius
also is eligible for pension benefits equal to $100,000 per year, consisting of
(a) the dollar amount of retirement benefits actually payable to Mr. Gailius
under The Retirement Plan for Salaried Employees of American Biltrite Inc. (the
"Pension Plan"); (b) an amount equal to the difference between (i) the dollar
amount of retirement benefits to which Mr. Gailius would have been entitled to
at age 65 under the Pension Plan absent any limit on credited compensation
imposed by the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, and (ii) the dollar
amount of retirement benefits actually payable to Mr. Gailius under the Pension
Plan; and (c) an additional cash payment from the Company. The payment
referenced in clause (c) of the immediately preceding sentence is guaranteed for
at least five years after Mr. Gailius's two-year term expires on January 1,
2002.

Mr. Gailius's duties and responsibilities as Vice President of Strategic
Planning will be as determined from time to time by the Company's President.


                                       68