alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 48 (Friday, March 13, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10983-10984]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-5513]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Railroad Administration

[Docket No. FRA-2009-0016]


Metrics and Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service Under 
Section 207 of Public Law 110-432

AGENCY: Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), Department of 
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Notice and request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with section 207 of the Passenger Rail 
Investment and Improvement Act of 2008 (Division B of Pub. L. 110-432), 
the FRA and the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) have 
jointly drafted performance metrics and standards for intercity 
passenger rail service, and are requesting comments on that draft from 
the Surface Transportation Board, rail carriers over whose rail lines 
Amtrak trains operate, States, Amtrak employees, nonprofit employee 
organizations representing Amtrak employees, and groups representing 
Amtrak passengers. The draft document, entitled ``Proposed Metrics and 
Standards for Intercity Passenger Rail Service,'' is available on the 
FRA's Web site at http://www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2165. Comments may 
be submitted to the corresponding docket (number FRA-2009-0016) at 
regulations.gov and will be considered before the finalized Section 207 
metrics and standards are adopted.

DATES: The comment period will commence on Friday, March 13, 2009 and 
Comments must be received by Friday, March 27, 2009. Comments received 
after that date will be considered to the extent possible without 
incurring additional expenses or delays.

ADDRESSES: Comments for Docket No. FRA-2009-0016 should be filed at the 
Federal portal http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web site's online 
instructions for submitting comments.

[[Page 10984]]


FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Neil E. Moyer, Chief, Intercity 
Passenger Rail Analysis Division, U.S. Department of Transportation, 
Federal Railroad Administration (e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#145a717d783a597b6d716654707b603a737b62"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c58ba0aca9eb88aabca0b785a1aab1eba2aab3">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone 
202-493-6365); or Ed Courtemanch, Sr. Principal, Operations Service 
Planning, Amtrak (e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#f2b19d87808697b7b2939f86809399dc919d9f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="91d2fee4e3e5f4d4d1f0fce5e3f0fabff2fefc">[email protected]</span></a>; telephone 202-906-3249).

    Issued in Washington, DC, on March 9, 2009.
Neil Moyer,
Chief, Intercity Passenger Rail Analysis Division.
 [FR Doc. E9-5513 Filed 3-12-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-06-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23


            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We  have  issued  our  report  dated  July  23,  2004,   accompanying   the
consolidated  financial statements and schedule included in the Annual Report of
Vasomedical,  Inc. and  Subsidiaries  on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended May
31, 2004. We hereby consent to the  incorporation by reference of said report in
the Registration  Statements of Vasomedical,  Inc. and Subsidiaries on Forms S-3
(File No.  333-34044,  effective April 12, 2000, File No.  333-60341,  effective
December 28, 1998, File No.  333-33319,  effective August 21, 1997, and File No.
33-62329,  effective  September 18, 1995) and on Forms S-8 (File No.  333-86152,
effective April 12, 2002, File No. 333-42692, effective August 1, 2000, File No.
333-85457,  effective August 18, 1999, File No. 333-85455,  effective August 18,
1999,  File No.  333-60471,  effective  August  3,  1998,  File  No.  333-11579,
effective  September 6, 1996, File No. 333-11581,  effective  September 6, 1996,
and File No. 333-11583, effective September 6, 1996).


/s/ Grant Thornton LLP
GRANT THORNTON LLP

Melville, New York
July 23, 2004
Caren I. SHEPUTIS, Respondent, v. Kenneth P. SHEPUTIS, Appellant.

No. ED 105613

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, DIVISION FOUR.

Filed: March 20, 2018

James D. Terrell, 2801 St. Mary's Ave., P.O. Box 962, Hannibal, MO 63401-0962, For Plaintiff/Respondent.

Sara L. Ehret, 423 Main St.-P.O. Box 446, New London, MO 63459, For Defendant/Appellant.

Before Colleen Dolan, P.J., Mary K. Hoff, J., and Lisa S. Van Amburg, J.

***ORDER***

PER CURIAM.

Kenneth Sheputis ("Father") appeals the trial court's judgment denying his Amended Motion to Modify Decree of Dissolution of Marriage finding that there had been no change in circumstances warranting a modification of the previous judgment that awarded the parties joint legal custody, but awarded Caren Sheputis sole physical custody of their children. Father offers two points on appeal. In his first point, Father argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion because its determination that there was no change in circumstances warranting modification was against the weight of the evidence. In his second point, Father contends that the trial court erred in failing to make written findings of fact in its judgment because written findings of fact are required regarding the factors enumerated in § 452.375.2 used to determine custody in accordance with a child's best interests. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, we have provided the parties a memorandum setting forth the reasons for our decision. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed under Rule 84.16(b).
[Cite as Foster v. Friedland , 2016-Ohio-7230.] 

# Court of Appeals of Ohio

EIGHTH APPELLATE DISTRICT COUNTY OF CUYAHOGA

JOURNAL ENTRY AND OPINION No. 104718



## NATHANIEL FOSTER

RELATOR

vs. 

## CAROLYN FRIEDLAND, JUDGE

RESPONDENT



### JUDGMENT: WRIT DENIED

Writ of Mandamus Motion No. 498872

Order No. 500097

RELEASE DATE: October 4, 2016FOR RELATOR

Nathaniel Foster, pro se Inmate No. 369-398 Richland Correctional Institution P.O. Box 8107 Mansfield, Ohio 44901

ATTORNEYS FOR RESPONDENT

Timothy J. McGinty Cuyahoga County Prosecutor By: James E. Moss Assistant County Prosecutor The Justice Center 1200 Ontario Street Cleveland, Ohio 44113SEAN C. GALLAGHER, J.:

{¶1} On July 11, 2016, the relator, Nathaniel Foster, commenced this mandamus

action against the respondent, Judge Carolyn Friedland, to compel the judge to issue a

ruling on his January 26, 2016 motion to vacate a void judgment that Foster filed in the

underlying case, State v. Foster, Cuyahoga

C.P. No. CR-98-370295-B. On August 8, 2016, the respondent judge moved for

summary judgment on the grounds of mootness and procedural defects. Attached to the

dispositive motion is a copy of a certified, file-stamped

August 4, 2016 journal entry that denies the subject motion. The respondent also

argues that relator’s complaint is defective because the caption does not include “State ex

rel.” Foster never filed a response. For the following reasons, this court grants the

judge’s motion for summary judgment.

{¶2} First, the petition is defective because it is improperly captioned. Foster

styled this petition as “Nathaniel Foster v. Carolyn Friedland, Judge.” R.C. 2731.04

requires that an application for a writ of mandamus “must be by petition, in the name of

the state on the relation of the person applying.” This failure to properly caption a

mandamus action is sufficient grounds for denying the writ and dismissing the petition.

Maloney v. Court of Common Pleas of Allen Cty. , 173 Ohio St. 226, 181 N.E.2d 270

(1962).{¶3} Moreover, the attached journal entry established that the judge fulfilled her

duty to decide the motion and that Foster received his requested relief, a ruling. 1

Therefore, this mandamus action is moot.

{¶4} Accordingly, this court grants the judge’s motion for summary judgment

and denies the application for a writ of mandamus. Respondent to pay costs; costs

waived. This court directs the clerk of courts to serve all parties notice of this judgment

and its date of entry upon the journal as required by Civ.R. 58(B).

{¶5} Writ denied.

SEAN C. GALLAGHER, JUDGE

EILEEN T. GALLAGHER, P.J., and ANITA LASTER MAYS, J., CONCUR

1 The requisites for mandamus are well established: (1) the relator must have a clear legal right to the requested relief, (2) the respondent must have a clear legal duty to perform the requested relief and (3) there must be no adequate remedy at law. Additionally, although mandamus may be used to compel a court to exercise judgment or to discharge a function, it may not control judicial discretion, even if that discretion is grossly abused. State ex rel. Ney v. Niehaus , 33 Ohio St.3d 118, 515 N.E.2d 914 (1987).
Joyce L. Connery, Chair

Thomas A. Summers, Vice Chair

DEFENSE NUCLEAR FACILITIES

SAFETY BOARD

Washington, DC 20004-2901

February 20, 2024

The Honorable Jennifer Granholm

Secretary of Energy

U.S. Department of Energy

1000 Independence Avenue, SW

Washington, DC 20585-1000 

Dear Secretary Granholm:

On December 5, 2023, the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board (Board) sent a letter

to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) that noted safety concerns with two key proposed 

changes to DOE Order 425.1D, Verification of Readiness to Start Up or Restart Nuclear 

Facilities. The Board requested a report and briefing from DOE within 45 days regarding 

DOE’s path forward on the revision to the order.

On January 31, 2024, DOE conveyed its need for an additional 90 days to evaluate and 

coordinate its response to the Board’s concerns. The Board has no objection to DOE’s request 

for a 90-day extension. The Board is pleased to hear that DOE intends to provide its response 

prior to issuing the revised order.

Sincerely,

Joyce L. Connery

Chair

c: Mr. Todd LaPointe, Director, Office of Environment, Health, Safety and Security

 Mr. Joe Olencz, Director, Office of the Departmental Representative to the Board
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 July 21, 2015

Order 

Clerk

July 21, 2015

150677(52)

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

SC: 150677

v COA: 321045

Ottawa CC: 13-037857-AR

BRANDON MICHAEL HALL,

Defendant-Appellee.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the motion of defendant-appellee to extend the time 

for filing his supplemental brief on appeal is GRANTED. The supplemental brief 

submitted on July 8, 2015, is accepted for filing.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS

- - - - - - - -

NO. 22-0278

FELIX SORKIN, INDIVIDUALLY, 

GENERAL TECHNOLOGIES, INC., 

AND PRECISION-HAYES 

INTERNATIONAL, INC.

v.

P.T. ATLAS MANUFACTURING, 

L.L.C.

§

§

§

§

§

§

Dallas County,

5th District.

December 16, 2022

Petitioners' petition for review, filed herein in the above numbered and styled case, 

having been duly considered, is ordered, and hereby is, denied.



I, BLAKE A. HAWTHORNE, Clerk of the Supreme Court of Texas, do hereby certify 

that the above is a true and correct copy of the orders of the Supreme Court of Texas in the case 

numbered and styled as above, as the same appear of record in the minutes of said Court under 

the date shown.

It is further ordered that petitioners, FELIX SORKIN, INDIVIDUALLY, GENERAL 

TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AND PRECISION-HAYES INTERNATIONAL, INC., pay all costs 

incurred on this petition.

WITNESS my hand and seal of the Supreme Court of Texas, at the City of Austin, this 

the 19th day of January, 2023.

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

By Monica Zamarripa, Deputy Clerk

FILE COPY
----

Exhibit 32.1 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

The undersigned, Long Qin, the ChiefExecutive Officer of RUB A DUB SOAP, INC. (the "Company"), DO HEREBY CERTIFYthat: 

1. The Company’s Quarterly Report onForm 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report"), fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

2. Information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresults of operation of the Company. 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, each of theundersigned has executed this statement this 9th day of May 2008. 

/s/ Long Qin                                         Long Qin Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) 

A signed original of this written statement required bySection 906 has been provided to Rub A Dub Soap, Inc. and will be retained byRub A Dub Soap, Inc. and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission orits staff upon request. 

The forgoing certification is being furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission pursuant to §18 U.S.C. Section 1350. It isnot being filed for purposes of Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of1934, as amended, and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing ofthe Company, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of anygeneral incorporation language in such filing. 

----
STATE of North Carolina v. Tyler Deion GREENFIELD

No. 11A19

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 11, 2019

Jess D. Mekeel, Assistant Attorney General, Ben R. David, District Attorney, for State of North Carolina.

Kathryn L. VandenBerg, Assistant Appellant Defender, for Greenfield, Tyler Deion.

***ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 8th of January 2019 by State of NC in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 11th of June 2019."

Therefore the case is docketed as of the date of this order's certification. Briefs of the respective parties shall be submitted to this Court within the times allowed and in the manner provided by Appellate Rule 15(g)(2).
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

**PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED BY SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I, Sean R. Stover, as Chief Financial Officer of NextMedia Operating, Inc.(the “**Company**”) certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge: 

 

(1) the accompanying Form 10-Q report for the period ending March 31, 2005 as filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (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.

 

Dated: May 11, 2005 

 

 

A SIGNED ORIGINAL OF THISWRITTEN STATEMENT REQUIRED BY SECTION 906 HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND WILL BE RETAINED BY NEXTMEDIA OPERATING, INC. AND FURNISHED TO THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OR ITS STAFF UPON REQUEST.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM 10-KSB
12/31/96 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             120
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,742
<PP&E>                                          39,728
<DEPRECIATION>                                  13,059
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  32,411
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           46,604
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        15,000
<OTHER-SE>                                     (29,193)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    32,411
<SALES>                                        785,970
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               940,745
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             3,352,047
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             754,647
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (3,165,949)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (3,165,949)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                              1,226,243
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,939,706)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     (.17)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (.17)
        

</TABLE>
| (1)   | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

----

| (1)   | the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2012 (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. |
|-----------------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
#### Gautier Properties, a Corporation, and R. B. Gautier, *Appellants,*v. A. W. Mannering and M. M. Hogan, *Appellees.*

Division A.

Decision Filed May 9, 1928.

Petition for Rehearing Denied August 1, 1928.

*B. B. Gautier,*for Appellants;

*Hudson-■& Cason*and *Benson, McGarry & Sullivan,*for Appellees.

Per Curiam.

This cause having heretofore been submitted to the Court upon the transcript of the record of the decrees herein, and briefs and argument of counsel for the respective parties, and the record having been seen and inspected, and the Court being now advised of its judgment to be given in the premises, it seems to the Court that there is no error in the said decrees; it is, therefore, considered, ordered and decreed by the Court that the said decrees of the Circuit Court be, and the same are hereby affirmed.

Ellis, C. J., and Strum and Brown, J. J., concur.
EXHIBIT 99.2





CERTIFICATION





In connection with this
Quarterly Report of Hewitt Associates, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended December 31, 2002, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), the undersigned Chief
Financial Officer of the Company hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that: 1) the Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) 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 as of and for the periods covered in the Report.





HEWITT ASSOCIATES, INC.(Registrant)By:    /s/    DAN A.
DECANNIEREDan A. DeCanniereChief Financial Officer








Date: February 4, 2003
November 4`h, 2010

To: Lisa P. Jackson Administrator United States Environment Protection Agency Fr: John. C

. Higbie Jr. Mary Jane Higbie Family FarmOwners Colfax, Wis. Dear Ms. Jackson, 

# DAr 2010NOV -9 AM

I I- 34 

# OF T~ ~~E .- 

# EXE~UTiVE S~CREiAy;hT

We are contacting you today to ask you to reconsider the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines rule. NRECAfiled a petition in your office in late October, and we support their petition. We own and run a small family farmin Dunn County, Wis. In 2003 we purchased a 220 kW back up generator to make sure our farm, Windmill Dairy, could continue to operate during extended power outages . A bonus to purchasing the generator was being able to participate in Dunn Energy Cooperative's load control program . This program, using my generator when they need to decrease demand on the grid, saves us nearly $7,600 a year . In this economy, any little bit helps, but $7,600 helps a lot . The rules your agency are trying to start will take away that peak alert rate my Cooperative can offer. That means a $7,600 out of our pocket . As a self-employed farmer, that's hard to swallow . We'd like your agency to reconsider not allowing peak shaving controls of generators like mine within the proposed 100 hour limits . The request NRECAfiled does not ask for more hours of operation;just to include peak shaving use within the 100 hour limit . Since we're a part of a Cooperative we see the savings and revenue fromthis type of arrangement, not them . Plus, we are helping to reduce energy demand during the peak times. This is a significant savings to our small business .

John C . Higbie Jr. Mary Jane Higbie Colfax, Wisconsint ~ ~° 'r' o ~ w r

:... . o

,

C t5 m ~> PRESORTED FlRS'1' CLASS - n *

+». ... ~ o ° v~~4 N 

## p C~, O NK '



### ' 0co N N 3'

z < 0,00 P, N v O ~~ O 

### a O : ~ m , N ~
Exhibit 23

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS




We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the registration
statements (No. 333-02465 and No. 333-44243) on Form S-8 and in the registration
statement (No. 333-04559) on Form S-3 of Sparta Foods, Inc. of our report dated
November 12, 1998, relating to the financial statements of Sparta Foods, Inc.
and Subsidiary as of September 30, 1998 and 1997, which report appears in the
September 30, 1998, annual report on Form 10-KSB of Sparta Foods, Inc.


/s/  McGladrey & Pullen, LLP

Minneapolis, Minnesota
December 16, 1998