alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 78 (Friday, April 21, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 21383-21384]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9649]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. ID-02-0001; FRL-6580-5]


Approval and Promulgation of Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste 
Incinerators State Plan for Designated Facilities and Pollutants: Idaho

AGENCY:  Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION:  Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY:  The EPA proposes to approve the State of Idaho's section 
111(d) State Plan for controlling emissions from existing Hospital/
Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators (HMIWI). The plan was submitted 
on December 16, 1999, to fulfill the requirements of sections 111(d) 
and 129 of the Clean Air Act. The State Plan adopts and implements the 
Emissions Guidelines applicable to existing HMIWIs, and establishes 
emission limits and controls for sources constructed on or before June 
20, 1996.
    In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is 
approving Idaho's State Plan as a direct final rule without prior 
proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial action and 
anticipates no relevant adverse comments. A detailed rationale for the 
approval is set forth in the direct final rule. If no relevant adverse 
comments are received in response to this action, EPA will not take 
action on this proposed rule. If the EPA receives relevant adverse 
comments, EPA will withdraw the direct final rule and it will not take 
effect. EPA will then address all public comments received in a 
subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. The EPA will not 
institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES:  Written comments must be received by May 22, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Written comments should be addressed to: Catherine Woo, US 
EPA, Region X, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, 
Seattle, WA 98101.
    Copies of the State submittal are available for public review 
during normal business hours at the following locations. Persons 
wanting to examine these documents should make an appointment with the 
appropriate office

[[Page 21384]]

at least 24 hours before the day of the visit.

Environmental Protection Agency, Region X, Office of Air Quality, 1200 
Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101.
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, 1410 N. Hilton, Boise, ID 
83720 (Contact Tim Teater at 208-373-0457 for an appointment at IDEQ).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Catherine Woo, Office of Air Quality 
(OAQ-107), US EPA, Region X, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101, 
(206) 553-1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:  For additional information see the direct 
final action which is published in the Rules section of this Federal 
Register.

    Dated: April 4, 2000.
Chuck Clarke,
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
[FR Doc. 00-9649 Filed 4-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
**EXHIBIT
      32.1**





**PERICOM
      SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION**





CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


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 quarterly report of Pericom Semiconductor Corporation
      (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the three-months ended September 29, 2007 (the
“Report”), I, Alex C. Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby
      certify as of the date hereof, solely for purposes of Title 18, Chapter 63,
      Section 1350 of the United States Code, that to the best of my
      knowledge:




(1)
      the
      Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d), as
      applicable, 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 at the dates
      and for the periods indicated.


December
              13, 2007
            By:
            /s/ Alex
              C.
              HuiAlex
              C. HuiChief Executive Officer
              Pericom Semiconductor
                Corporation
#### In the Matter of Nicholas R. Santoro et al., Respondents, v Dolores (Dolly) K. Kujawa et al., Appellants, and Marguerite L. Toole et al., Constituting the Monroe County Board of Elections, Respondents.

(Appeal No. 1.)

Order unanimously affirmed without costs. (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Monroe County, Tillman, J.—Election Law.) Present—Callahan, J. P., Doerr, Boomer and Lawton, JJ. (Order entered Sept. 3, 1987.)
Exhibit 15

 

 

 

 

Mexico City, November 8, 2005

 

Securities and Exchange Commission

450 Fifth Street, NW

Washington D.C., 20549

 

 

Commissioner,

 

We are aware that our report dated October14, 2005 on our review of interim financial information of Southern CopperCorporation for the three and nine-month periods ended September 30, 2005 and2004 and included in the Company’s quarterly report on Form 10-Q for thequarter ended September 30, 2005 is incorporated by reference in itsRegistration Statement No. 333-129287 dated October 28, 2005 on Form S-4.

 

 

 

Yours very truly,

 

 

 

PRICEWATERHOUSECOOPERS

 

 

44

----
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Kenny Shields, Appellant.

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no meritorious issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see, Anders v California,*386 US 738; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606). Mangano, J. P., Brown, Rubin and Eiber, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT 16.1

  
<PAGE>

[LETTERHEAD OF ERNST & YOUNG LLP]



November 15, 1996




Securities and Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20549


Gentlemen:


We have read Item 4 of Form 8-K dated  October 14, 1996,  of Liberte  Investors,
Inc. and are in agreement with the statements  contained in the second paragraph
of Item 4 on page 2 therein.  We have no basis to agree or  disagree  with other
statements of the registrant contained therein.


                                        /s/ Ernst & Young LLP

                                        ERNST & YOUNG LLP
#### Donald E. Hebert, Respondent, v State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company, Appellant.

— Yesawich, Jr.,

*959In a contract action to recover first-party benefits from his no-fault insurance carrier, plaintiff in his complaint, as amplified by a bill of particulars, seeks punitive damages. Defendant decided not to pay plaintiff, who some three weeks after undergoing surgery for a herniated disc on the right side was involved in a motor vehicle accident resulting in left shoulder and neck pain, giving rise to plaintiff’s no-fault claim. Plaintiff charges this decision was inspired by malice and bad faith, primarily because defendant, acting through a claims adjuster who lacked medical training and contrary to the opinion of plaintiff’s medical experts, concluded plaintiff was not disabled due to the auto accident and refused to pay him benefits for lost wages he sustained. Defendant’s motion to dismiss the punitive damage claim for failure to state a cause of action was denied, prompting this appeal. We reverse.

Punitive damages may be recovered even though only private rights are involved *(see, Keen v Keen,*113 AD2d 964, 965-966, l*v dismissed*67 NY2d 646). However, they are not award-able for an isolated transaction incident to a legitimate business, such as a breach of an insurance contract, even a breach committed willfully and without justification; accordingly, even if the allegations of the complaint herein are proven, a punitive damage award would be unwarranted *(see, Home Ins. Co. v Karantonis,*124 AD2d 368; *Marsch v Massachusetts Indem. & Life Ins. Co.,*101 AD2d 952, 953, *lv dismissed*63 NY2d 769). Furthermore, to recover on account of defendant’s purported bad faith, plaintiff was obliged to make an extraordinary showing of a disingenuous or dishonest failure by defendant to carry out its contract *(see, Gordon v Nationwide Mut. Ins. Co.,*30 NY2d 427, 437, *cert denied*410 US 931; *see also, Royal Globe Ins. Co. v Chock Full O’Nuts,*86 AD2d 315, *lv dismissed*58 NY2d 800). That showing was not made.

Order reversed, on the law, without costs, motion granted and plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages dismissed. Mahoney, P. J., Main, Mikoll, Yesawich, Jr., and Harvey, JJ., concur.
```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2604 Introduced in House (IH)]

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2604

 To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of 
     the antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 2, 2015

Mr. Smith of Texas (for himself and Mr. Johnson of Georgia) introduced 
    the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the 
                               Judiciary

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To improve and reauthorize provisions relating to the application of 
     the antitrust laws to the award of need-based educational aid.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Need-Based Educational Aid Act of 
2015''.

SEC. 2. EXTENSION RELATING TO THE APPLICATION OF THE ANTRITRUST LAWS TO 
              THE AWARD OF NEED-BASED EDUCATIONAL AID.

    Section 568 of the Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 (15 
U.S.C. 1 note) is amended--
            (1) in subsection (a)--
                    (A) in paragraph (2), by inserting ``or'' after the 
                semicolon;
                    (B) in paragraph (3), by striking ``; or'' and 
                inserting a period at the end; and
                    (C) by striking paragraph (4); and
            (2) in subsection (d), by striking ``2015'' and inserting 
        ``2022''.
                                 <all>
```
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       5,296,897
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,404,817
<ALLOWANCES>                                    14,326
<INVENTORY>                                  1,402,026
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             9,096,886
<PP&E>                                      32,422,742
<DEPRECIATION>                               5,177,509
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              37,676,272
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,707,307
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        82,243
<OTHER-SE>                                  34,039,218
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                37,676,272
<SALES>                                      5,869,893
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             6,227,482
<CGS>                                        4,628,887
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                6,439,836
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                99,949
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                14,326
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (469,994)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (469,994)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (469,994)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                   (0.06)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.06)
        

</TABLE>
EXHIBIT 32

Certification

Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section
1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FiberNet Telecom Group, Inc., (the Company), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:

The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended June 30, 2007 (the Form 10-Q) of the Company fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, and the information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.



|                     |  |  |  |                              
|-------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------------
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Jon A. DeLuca            
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Executive Officer      
|                     |  | 
|Date: August 9, 2007 |  |  |  | /s/ Charles S. Wiesenhart Jr.
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer      

A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the Company and will
be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 21000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9715]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; Notice of 
Closed Meetings

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2), notice is hereby given of the following 
meetings.
    The meetings will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group, Health Services Research Review 
Subcommittee.
    Date: June 15, 2000.
    Time: 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, Bethesda, MD 20814.
    Contact Person: Elsie Taylor, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Suite 409, 6000 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-443-9787, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7a1f0e1b031615083a14131b1b1b54141312541d150c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="533627322a3f3c21133d3a3232327d3d3a3b7d343c25">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Name of Committee: National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and 
Alcoholism Initial Review Group, Clinical and Treatment 
Subcommittee.
    Date: June 29-30, 2000.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 5 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: Holiday Inn, 1450 Glenarm Place, Denver, CO 80202.
    Contact Person: Elsie Taylor, Scientific Review Administrator, 
Extramural Project Review Branch, National Institute on Alcohol 
Abuse and Alcoholism, National Institutes of Health, Suite 409, 6000 
Executive Blvd., Bethesda, MD 20892-7003, 301-443-9787, 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4d28392c3421223f0d23242c2c2c632a223b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="690c1d081005061b290700080808470e061f">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.271, 
Alcohol Research Career Development Awards for Scientists and 
Clinicians; 93.272, Alcohol National Research Service Awards for 
Research Training; 93.273, Alcohol Research Programs; 93.891, 
Alcohol Research Center Grants, National Institutes of Health, HHS)
    Dated: April 12, 2000.
LaVerne Y. Stringfield,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 00-9715 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
# United Stat es Court of A ppeals For the First C ircuit
No. 01-2275

PALMER PAXTON STOUTT; RANCAL INTERNATIONAL, INC.;

RANCAL CORP., LTD., Plaintiffs, Appellants,

v. BANCO POPULAR DE PUERTO RICO, Defendant, Appellee.

__________ EURO-ATLANTIC SECURITIES; ABC INSURANCE CO.; XYZ INSURANCE CO., Defendants.
ERRATA The opinion of this Court, issued on February 10, 2003, should be amended as follows. On page 12, last line of 2nd full paragraph, add "to" between "antecedent" and "reporting".
#### Kenneth R Hall, Respondent, v Richard McNeil, Appellant, and Jack S. Scott, Individually and Doing Business as The Hylander Bar-Grill, Respondent.

— Order, insofar as appealed from, unanimously reversed, on the law, with costs, in accordance with the following memorandum: Defendant appeals from an order permitting the codefendant Jack S. Scott to be represented by two attorneys at an examination before trial. Inasmuch as the examination before trial has been completed and only one attorney representing the defendant asked questions, the order has limited significance. Were it not for the likelihood that the question of dual representation will continue in the future, we would dismiss this appeal as moot. This issue persists, however, by reason of the defendant Scott’s general liability carrier’s insistence that its insured procure separate counsel to defend the noncovered causes of action. This court has held that when covered and noncovered causes of action are asserted against an insured, the correct procedure is for the insured to select his own counsel at insurance carrier’s expense to defend the entire action *(New York Mut. Underwriters v Cavallaro,*90 AD2d 962; *Allstate Ins. Co. v Long, 85*AD2d 880, *appeal dismissed*56 NY2d 644; *Rimar v Continental Cas. Co.,*50 AD2d 169, 173; *see also, Prashker v United States Guar. Co.,*1 NY2d 584, 593). Only by following this procedure may an attorney appearing on behalf of the insured avoid the likelihood of a conflict of interest (Code of Professional Responsibility DR 5-105). (Appeal from order of Supreme Court, Oneida County, Shaheen, J. — examination before trial.) Present — Dillon, P. J., Doerr, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.
CONSENT ORDER APPROVING SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT

On or about February 25,2023, the parties in this case submitted a Motion for Approval

of Settlement Agreement and Entry ofConsent Orderl to be approved as a settlement ofthe case

under 33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

I have carefully reviewed the terms of the Settlement Agreement and find it is fair and

reasonable and in substantial compliance with the requirements of33 C.F.R. $ 20.502.

ORDER

Upon consideration of the record, it is hereby ORDERED, the Settlement Agreement is

APPROVED in full and incorporated herein by reference. This Consent Order shall constitute

full, final, and complete adjudication of this proceeding.

Done and dated March 28,2023, at

Alameda, California

Timothy G. Stueve

Administrative Law Judge

U.S. Coast Guard

I I note that the Complaint and the Settlement Agreement for this case list a different Merchant Mariner Credential

(MMC) number for Respondent. LT Robedson clarified that the MMC number listed in the Complaint has an extra

digit at the end, and that the one listed in the Settlement Agreement, 000655837, is correct.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-7371

KENNETH LAMONT BROOKS,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of

South Carolina, at Columbia. Cameron McGowan Currie, District

Judge. (3:05-cv-03557-CMC)

Submitted: March 30, 2007 Decided: April 11, 2007

Before WILLIAMS, MOTZ, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kenneth Lamont Brooks, Appellant Pro Se. Stacey Denise Haynes,

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Columbia, South Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

Kenneth Lamont Brooks seeks to appeal the district

court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motion.

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 Brooks 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