alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 104 (Wednesday, May 31, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 28395]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-13194]



-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[Docket No. RP95-301-000]


Southern Natural Gas Company; Notice of Petition for Limited 
Waiver of Transportation Tariff Provisions

May 24, 1995.
    Take notice that on May 19, 1995, Southern Natural Gas Company 
(Southern) filed a petition for a limited waiver of certain provisions 
of its FERC Gas Tariff, Seventh Revised Volume No. 1, in compliance 
with Sec. 161.3(b) of the Commission's Regulations.
    Southern is requesting a limited waiver of Section 3(b) of Rate 
Schedules FT and FT-NN of its tariff to allow Northwest Alabama Gas 
District (Northwest) to subscribe to additional firm transportation 
(FT) service on Southern's system at a two-part rate as a part of a 
proposed expansion project while retaining its existing firm 
transportation services subject to a one-part rate.
    Southern states that a copy of the filing is being served on all of 
Southern's shippers.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 
20426, in accordance with 18 CFR 385.214 and 385.211 of the 
Commission's Rules and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before June 1, 1995. Protests will be considered by the 
Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but will 
not serve to make protestants parties to the proceeding. Any person 
wishing to become a party must file a motion to intervene. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the public reference room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-13194 Filed 5-30-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
# L_2008265EN.01001001.xml

| 4.10.2008 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | L 265/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.10.2008

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

L 265/10

---

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 974/2008

of 2 October 2008

amending for the 99th time Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban

THE COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 imposing certain specific restrictive measures directed against certain persons and entities associated with Usama bin Laden, the Al-Qaida network and the Taliban, and repealing Council Regulation (EC) No 467/2001 prohibiting the export of certain goods and services to Afghanistan, strengthening the flight ban and extending the freeze of funds and other financial resources in respect of the Taliban of Afghanistan (1), and in particular Article 7(1), first indent, thereof,

Whereas:

| (1) | Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation. |
| --- | --- |

(1)

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 lists the persons, groups and entities covered by the freezing of funds and economic resources under that Regulation.

| (2) | On 12 August 2008, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly, |
| --- | --- |

(2)

On 12 August 2008, the Sanctions Committee of the United Nations Security Council decided to amend the list of persons, groups and entities to whom the freezing of funds and economic resources should apply. Annex I should therefore be amended accordingly,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is hereby amended as set out in the Annex to this Regulation.

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following that of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Brussels, 2 October 2008.

For the Commission

Eneko LANDÁBURU

Director-General for External Relations

---

(1)  
  OJ L 139, 29.5.2002, p. 9.

1

---

ANNEX

Annex I to Regulation (EC) No 881/2002 is amended as follows:

The following entry under the heading ‘Natural persons’ entry shall be deleted:

‘Armand Albert Friedrich Huber (alias
  Huber, Ahmed). Address: Rossimattstrasse 33, 3074 Muri b. Bern, Switzerland. Date of birth: 1927. Nationality: Swiss. Other information: (a) No Swiss passport has been issued under this name; (b) Deceased in May 2008.’

---
<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 99.1

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



In connection with this Report of Sturgis Bancorp, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Leonard L. Eishen,
Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section
1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that
to the best of my knowledge:

     1.   The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or
          15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



Date   March 25, 2003             /s/
       --------------             --------------------------------------------
                                  Leonard L. Eishen, Chief Executive Officer


                                       40
#### Enrique Gabrielle MENDEZ-VALENZUELA, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. State of ARIZONA; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 07-15293.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted May 24, 2011.*

Filed June 8, 2011.

*828Enrique Gabrielle Mendez-Valenzuela, Florence, AZ, pro se.

Before: PREGERSON, THOMAS, and PAEZ, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM **

Enrique Gabrielle Mendez-Valenzuela appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that defendants failed to respond properly to her report of an assault and damage to her legal documents. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review for an abuse of discretion the district court’s dismissal for failure to comply with vexatious litigant orders. *In re Fillbach,*223 F.3d 1089, 1090-91 (9th Cir.2000). We affirm.

The district court did not abuse its discretion by dismissing the action because Mendez-Valenzuela failed to comply with the vexatious litigant orders entered against her requiring, among other things, that she submit a motion for leave to file a complaint in which she certifies that she presents claims that have never been reviewed and disposed of on the merits by any federal court, and that are not frivolous or taken in bad faith. *See Mendez v. Trujillo,*No. 04-00698, slip op. at 1 (D.Ariz. Aug. 18, 2004); *Mendez v. Maxwell,*No. 02-02452, slip op. at 1 (D.Ariz, Aug. 25, 2003). Mendez-Valenzuela neither submitted a motion for leave to file a complaint nor certified that she asserted new, non-frivolous, good faith claims in her complaint.

Mendez-Valenzuela’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 121 (Monday, June 28, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 34000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-13746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-900-000.
    Applicants: Destin Pipeline Company, L.L.C.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Destin Pipeline--Negotiated 
Rate Agreement Filing to be effective 6/21/2021.
    Filed Date: 6/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210621-5018.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 7/6/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-901-000.
    Applicants: Fieldwood Energy LLC, Fieldwood Energy Offshore LLC, 
Fieldwood Energy SP LLC, Mako Buyer LLC.
    Description: Joint Petition for Limited Waiver of Capacity Release 
Regulations, et al. of Fieldwood Energy LLC, et al.
    Filed Date: 6/21/21.
    Accession Number: 20210618-5114.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 6/28/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified comment date. Protests may be 
considered, but intervention is necessary to become a party to the 
proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: June 22, 2021.
Debbie-Anne A. Reese,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-13746 Filed 6-25-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
NATHAN JER ROME JACKSON

,

Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

,

Appellee

. IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

FIRST DISTRICT, STATE OF FLORIDA

NOT FINAL UNTIL TIME EXPIRES TO

FILE MOTION FOR REHEARING AND

DISPOSITION THEREOF IF FILED

CASE NO. 1D 17

- 0995

_ ____________________________/

Opinion filed August 3 , 2017.

An appeal from the Circuit Court for Walton County

. Kelvin C. Wells , Judge

.

Nathan Jerrome Jackson, pro se , Appellant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, Tallahassee , for Appellee.

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

WINOKUR, JAY, and M.K. THOMAS, JJ., CONCUR.
# L_2020406DE.01006701.xml

| 3.12.2020 | DE | Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union | L 406/67 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

3.12.2020

DE

Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union

L 406/67

---

Berichtigung der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1334/2008 des Europäischen Parlaments und des Rates vom 16. Dezember 2008 über Aromen und bestimmte Lebensmittelzutaten mit Aromaeigenschaften zur Verwendung in und auf Lebensmitteln sowie zur Änderung der Verordnung (EWG) Nr. 1601/91 des Rates, der Verordnungen (EG) Nr. 2232/96 und (EG) Nr. 110/2008 und der Richtlinie 2000/13/EG

(
  Amtsblatt der Europäischen Union L 354 vom 31. Dezember 2008
  )

Seite 39, Artikel 3 Absatz 2 Buchstabe k:

Anstatt:

| „k) | ‚geeignetes physikalisches Verfahren‘: physikalisches Verfahren, bei dem die chemischen Eigenschaften der Aromabestandteile nicht absichtlich verändert werden und das unter anderem — unbeschadet der Auflistung von herkömmlichen Lebensmittelzubereitungsverfahren in Anhang II — ohne Einsatz von Singulett-Sauerstoff, Ozon, anorganischen Katalysatoren, Metallkatalysatoren, metallorganischen Reagenzien und/oder UV-Strahlen durchgeführt wird.“ |
| --- | --- |

„k)

‚geeignetes physikalisches Verfahren‘: physikalisches Verfahren, bei dem die chemischen Eigenschaften der Aromabestandteile nicht absichtlich verändert werden und das unter anderem — unbeschadet der Auflistung von herkömmlichen Lebensmittelzubereitungsverfahren in Anhang II — ohne Einsatz von Singulett-Sauerstoff, Ozon, anorganischen Katalysatoren, Metallkatalysatoren, metallorganischen Reagenzien und/oder UV-Strahlen durchgeführt wird.“

muss es heißen:

| „k) | ‚geeignetes physikalisches Verfahren‘: physikalisches Verfahren, bei dem die chemischen Eigenschaften der Aromabestandteile nicht absichtlich verändert werden, unbeschadet der Auflistung von herkömmlichen Lebensmittelzubereitungsverfahren in Anhang II, und das unter anderem ohne Einsatz von Singulett-Sauerstoff, Ozon, anorganischen Katalysatoren, Metallkatalysatoren, metallorganischen Reagenzien und/oder UV-Strahlen durchgeführt wird.“ |
| --- | --- |

„k)

‚geeignetes physikalisches Verfahren‘: physikalisches Verfahren, bei dem die chemischen Eigenschaften der Aromabestandteile nicht absichtlich verändert werden, unbeschadet der Auflistung von herkömmlichen Lebensmittelzubereitungsverfahren in Anhang II, und das unter anderem ohne Einsatz von Singulett-Sauerstoff, Ozon, anorganischen Katalysatoren, Metallkatalysatoren, metallorganischen Reagenzien und/oder UV-Strahlen durchgeführt wird.“

---
#### Dolores Mouzakes et al., Respondents, v County of Suffolk et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[941 NYS2d 850]

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Police Department appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Baisley, Jr., J.), dated April 22, 2011, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with one bill of costs, and the appellants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them is granted.

The plaintiffs allegedly sustained injuries when a vehicle operated by an intoxicated driver, and pursued by a Suffolk County police officer, collided with their vehicle. In the order appealed from, the Supreme Court denied the motion of the County of Suffolk and the Suffolk County Police Department (hereinafter together the defendants) for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them. The defendants appeal and we reverse.

Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 qualifiedly exempts drivers of emergency vehicles from certain traffic laws when they are involved in an emergency operation *(see Kabir v County of Monroe,*16 NY3d 217, 222-224 [2011]; *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d 494, 497 [1994]; *Gonzalez v Zavala,*88 AD3d 946, 947 [2011]). The “[e]mergency operation” of a police vehicle includes *830“pursuing an actual or suspected violator of the law” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 114-b). While the driver of an emergency vehicle is permitted to disregard certain rules of the road, such emergency operation of a police vehicle “shall not relieve the driver of an authorized emergency vehicle from the duty to drive with due regard for the safety of all persons” and it does not “protect the driver from the consequences of his reckless disregard for the safety of others” (Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1104 [e]; *see Campbell v City of Elmira,*84 NY2d 505, 509-513 [1994]).

Here, the defendants made a prima facie showing that the police officer involved in the pursuit of the intoxicated driver was engaged in an emergency operation at the time of the accident, and that the police officer’s conduct did not rise to the level of reckless disregard for the safety of others (see *Saarinen v Kerr,*84 NY2d at 503-504; *Gonzalez v Zavala,*88 AD3d at 948; *Nurse v City of New York,*56 AD3d 442, 443 [2008]). In opposition, the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Accordingly, the defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims insofar as asserted against them should have been granted. Rivera, J.E, Dillon, Angiolillo and Leventhal, JJ., concur.
#### BARSOTTI, Appellant, v. DEL GENOVESE, Respondent.

Í Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 29, 1912.)

Action by Charles Barsotti against Fidelma Del Genovese. L. Steckler, for appellant. W. C. Low, for respondent.

PER CURIAM.

Judgment and order affirmed with costs. Order filed.

MILLER, J., dissents.
c. Evaluated the effectiveness of the Company’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controlsand procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; andd. Disclosed in this report any change in the Company’s internal control over financialreporting that occurred during the period covered by the annual report that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and5. The Company’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recentevaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the Company’s auditors and the auditcommittee of the Company’s board of directors: (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likelyto adversely affect the Company’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and  (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or otheremployees who have a significant role in the Company’s internal control overfinancial reporting.Date:July 15, 2010                                  /s/ Peter Tiedemann   Chief Financial Officer
ex_102.htm


Exhibit 10.2


 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  






 





 




  





  











  




 





 




  





  











  








 



AMENDMENT TO BUSINESS LOAN AND SECURITY AGREEMENT







This Amendment is incorporated into the Business Loan and Security Agreement (“BLSA”) entered into between Brooklyn Cheesecake and Desserts Co, Inc. (“Borrower”) and Lender.  Pursuant to the BLSA, Lender loaned Borrower $250,000 and Borrower has agreed to repay Lender $322,500.  The parties hereby agree to amend the BLSA as follows:







For all purposes of the BLSA and related documents, Borrower shall be Brooklyn Cheesecake and Desserts Co, Inc., Meridian Waste Solutions, Inc., Here to Serve Holding Corp. and Here To Serve - Missouri Waste Division, LLC.  The foregoing entities hereby agree to be bound by all the terms of the BLSA and related documents.    







This Amendment shall be binding upon the undersigned and its successors and assigns.  Except as otherwise provided herein: (i) all capitalized terms contained herein shall have the same meaning ascribed to them in the BLSA; and (ii) the BLSA remains in full force and effect.  To the extent that there is an inconsistency between the provisions of this Amendment and the provisions of the BLSA, the provisions of this Amendment shall govern.


 

 


Brooklyn Cheesecake


and Desserts Co, Inc.                                                                Here to Serve Holding Corp.







Signature: _______________________                             Signature: _______________________


Name:                                                                                           Name:                                                                


Title:                                                                                             Title:


Date:                                                                                             Date:












      Here To Serve - Missouri


Meridian Waste Solutions, Inc.                                              Waste Division, LLC







Signature: _______________________                             Signature: _______________________


Name:                                                                                           Name:


Title:                                                                                             Title:


Date:                                                                                             Date:
Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h Marilyn Kell y Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathawa y Mary Beth Kell y Brian K. Zahra,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk April 25, 2011

d0418 

# Order

April 25, 2011

141868

GET BACK UP, INC. and WILLIAM TAYLOR, Petitioners-Appellants,

v SC: 141868 COA: 299190 Wayne CC: 08-107348-AA DETROIT BOARD OF ZONING APPEALS, Respondent-Appellee,

and

RUSSELL WOODS SULLIVAN AREA ASSOCIATION, Intervenor-Appellee.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application fo r leave to appeal the July 29, 2010 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
#### In re VACHERON.

(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

March 15, 1912.)

In the matter of Eugene J. Vacheron. No opinion. Reference ordered to official referee. Settle order on notice.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7126

GEORGE G. RIDER,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ALBERTO GONZALES,

U.S. Attorney General; TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden

of USP Lee,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western

District of Virginia, at Roanoke. Glen E. Conrad, District Judge.

(7:06-cv-00354-GEC)

Submitted: November 21, 2006 Decided: November 30, 2006

Before TRAXLER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George G. Rider, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George G. Rider, a federal prisoner, filed a petition

under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), challenging the supervised release

portion of his sentence under United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220

(2005). The district court denied the petition for lack of

jurisdiction under § 2241. Rider argues on appeal that 28 U.S.C.

§ 2255 (2000) is inadequate and ineffective to test the legality of

his detention, contending that his Booker claim should be

considered in the context of his § 2241 petition. Because Rider

does not meet the standard under In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34

(4th Cir. 2000), we affirm the denial of relief. 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.

AFFIRMED