alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 76 (Wednesday, April 19, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Page 20959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-9766]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. RP96-320-030]


Koch Gateway Pipeline Company; Notice of Negotiated Rate Filing

April 13, 2000.
    Take notice that on April 11, 2000, Koch Gateway Pipeline Company 
(Koch) tendered for filing the following contracts reflecting 
negotiated rate transactions:

Special Negotiated Rate Between Koch and KET Energy Trading, 
Contracts Nos. 27619 and 27621

    Koch states that it requests a waiver of Section 154.207 of the 
Commission's regulations to allow the filing to be effective on October 
1, 1999.
    Koch states that it has served copies of this filing upon each of 
all parties on the official service list created by the Secretary in 
this proceeding.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE, Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 or 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
and Regulations. All such motions or protests must be filed in 
accordance with Section 154.210 of the Commission Regulations. 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 proceedings. 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. This filing may be viewed on the web at http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222 for assistance.

David P. Boergers,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 00-9766 Filed 4-18-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
#### Susan Capetola, Respondent, v Anthony A. Capetola, Appellant. Eliot F. Bloom, Nonparty Appellant.

[947 NYS2d 94]

*613Order, Supreme Court, New York County (Emily Jane Goodman, J), entered on or about June 7, 2011, which, after a hearing, imposed sanctions upon defendant Anthony A. Capetola and nonparty Eliot E Bloom, Esq., in the amount of $10,000 each to be paid to the Lawyers’ Fund for Client Protection, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Defendant, a lawyer involved in his divorce proceedings, submitted an affidavit to the court that was intentionally misleading in that he stated that he opposed renting out an apartment that was a disputed marital asset because he needed to use it at times for work purposes. He failed to disclose that, at that time, he was renting the apartment to the daughter of his lawyer (Bloom) for an amount that was substantially below market rate. This deliberately misleading representation concerning marital assets was properly found to be sanction-able, as it related to material facts on a pending motion *(see Weisburst v Dreifus,*89 AD3d 536 [2011]; 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [c] [3]).

The court also properly found that Bloom had engaged in sanctionable conduct since he submitted the misleading affidavit, signing the certification on its back. The evidence also showed that Bloom proceeded to engage in frivolous conduct, including calling the police when plaintiff wife entered the apartment unaware that anyone might be there, and found Bloom’s daughter there, and accusing plaintiff of trespass and violation of criminal laws. When plaintiffs counsel reminded Bloom that the apartment was held in plaintiffs name and that she was unaware of the secret rental arrangement, Bloom wrote letters to plaintiffs counsel that were insulting, legally incorrect, and characterized by the court as “shockingly unprofessional” and “unethical.” Under the circumstances, the court properly found Bloom’s conduct to be frivolous within the meaning of 22 NYCRR 130-1.1 *(see Weisburst,*89 AD3d at 536; *Nachbaur v American Tr. Ins. Co.,*300 AD2d 74, 75 [2002], *lv dismissed*99 NY2d 576 [2003], *cert denied*538 US 987 [2003]). Moreover, Bloom, who testified on his own behalf at the sanctions hearing, was afforded a reasonable opportunity to be heard *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.1 [d]; *compare Cangro v Cangro,*272 AD2d 286, 287 [2000]).

The amount of the sanctions imposed was not an abuse of discretion *(see*22 NYCRR 130-1.2).

*614We have considered appellants’ remaining contentions and find them unavailing. Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Moskowitz and Renwick, JJ.
# How to Pay the USCIS Immigrant Fee

The resources below can help you pay the USCIS Immigrant Fee online:

## Resources

## Still need help?

Use the online help form if you need assistance with:
                - Technical issues with your USCIS online account;
                - Forgotten user ID or password reset for your USCIS online account; or
                - Information about your application, petition or request.

If you are in the United States, you can also contact the USCIS Contact Center at 800-375-5283. For people who are deaf, hard of hearing or have a speech disability: TTY 800-767-1833.

09/13/2018

0 / 2000To protect your privacy, please do not include any personal information in your feedback. Review our Privacy Policy.
(85 South. 922)

#### McLEAN & STEPHENS v. UNION SPRINGS GUANO CO.

(4 Div. 842.)

(Supreme Court of Alabama.

Feb. 12, 1920.)

Appeal from Circuit Court, Bullock County; J. S. Williams, Judge.

G. E. Jones, of Clayton, for appellant.

E. L. Blue, of Union Springs, for appellee.

PER CURIAM.

Appeal dismissed by agreement of parties.
EXHIBIT 32.01
 
 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 Annual Report of PDF Solutions, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2010 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on March 22, 2011 (the “Report”), I, John K. Kibarian, President and 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 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 result of operations of the Company.


/s/ JOHN K. KIBARIANJohn K. Kibarian

President and Chief Executive Officer

(Principal Executive Officer)
  Date: March 22, 2011
Exhibit 32.02   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 Annual Report of Friendly Energy Exploration (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2009 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald Trapp, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge and belief:  (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 result of operations of the Company.      /s/ Donald Trapp By: Donald Trapp Chief Financial Officer  Dated: June 14, 2010  A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement 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.
#### Rember SIERRA, Petitioner, v. Eric H. HOLDER, Jr., Attorney General of the United States, Respondent.

No. 10-3728.

United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit.

Submitted: Aug. 8, 2011.

Filed: Aug. 11, 2011.

Daniel Warren Hoff, Jr., St. Louis, MO, for Petitioner.

Karen Yolanda Drummond, Richard M. Evans, Erica Miles, Jane Tracey Schaffner, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for Respondent.

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

*592PER CURIAM.

Honduran citizen Rember Sierra petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals that affirmed an immigration judge’s denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and relief under the Convention Against Torture. We lack jurisdiction to review the determination that the asylum application was barred as untimely filed. See 8 U.S.C. § 1158(a)(3); *Ngure v. Ashcroft,*367 F.3d 975, 989 (8th Cir.2004). After careful review, we conclude the denial of withholding of removal and denial of CAT relief are supported by substantial evidence in the record. *See Wijono v. Gonzales,*439 F.3d 868, 872 (8th Cir.2006) (standard of review). Accordingly, we deny the petition.
Instructions, Form 314

December 1, 2017

Ballot for Accepting or Rejecting Plan of Reorganization

General Information

Official Form 314 is used as a ballot for accepting or rejecting the plan(s) of 

reorganization. The ballot is to be used by general creditors (including secured, priority 

unsecured, and nonpriority unsecured creditors), bondholders, debenture holders, other debt 

security holders, and equity security holders who are entitled to vote on the plan(s).

Directions

Directions or blanks for the proponent (the person who filed the disclosure statement and

plan of reorganization) to complete the text of the ballot are enclosed in brackets on the Official 

Form. Only the applicable language from the alternatives shown on the Official Form should be 

included in the ballot, but the ballot may be modified to the particular requirements of the case. 

The form is designed to be customized by the proponent so that each class of creditor, debt 

security holder, or equity security holder under the plan will receive a ballot that only applies to 

that class. Holders of claims or equity security interests in more than one class may receive, and 

are entitled to vote, more than one ballot.

If more than one plan of reorganization is to be voted upon, the form of the ballot should 

be adapted to permit holders of claims or equity interests (a) to accept or reject each plan being 

proposed, and (b) to indicate preferences among the competing plans. See 11 U.S.C. § 1129(c).

The portion of the text labeled “Acceptance or Rejection of the Plan” includes three

versions of a statement to be completed by persons entitled to vote on the plan. One version is 

for holders of secured, priority, or unsecured nonpriority claims. The second version is for 

holders of bonds, debentures, or other debt securities. The third version is for holders of equity 

interests. The proponent should include only the applicable language for the person receiving the 

ballot.

Applicability of Rule 9009(a)

Rule 9009(a) provides that “[t]the Official Forms prescribed by the Judicial Conference 

of the United States shall be used without alteration, except as otherwise provided ... in the 

national instructions for a particular Official Form.” 

Alterations may be made to this form.
#### Lewis *et al. v.*Flack.

*(Common Pleas of New York City and County, General Term.*

June 2, 1890.)

Sale—Rights op Seller—Action por Possession.

Evidence of the false representations by which the purchaser obtained the property is admissible in an action to recover its possession by the seller against the sheriff, who levied on it in the hands of the purchaser.

Appeal from eleventh district court.

Action by Charles Lewis and others against James A. Flack, sheriff, to recover possession o'f personal property fraudulently obtained from plaintiffs by *536the vendee, and levied on by defendant as sheriff. Judgment for defendant. Plaintiffs appeal.

Argued before Larremore, C. J., and Allen and Bookstaver, JJ.

*Nathan Lewis,*for appellants. *David Tim,*for respondent.

Per Curiam.

This action was brought to recover the possession of certain property fraudulently obtained from plaintiffs by the vendee, and levied on by the defendant as sheriff. The sheriff was not a purchaser for value, and, where a sale of goods has been induced by false and fraudulent representations on the part of the vendee, the vendor may reclaim and retake them from the possession of any one but a purchaser in good faith for value; and evidence of the false and fraudulent representations inducing the sale are admissible in an action brought against the sheriff to the same extent that it would be against the original vendee. *Guckenheimer*v. *Angevine,*81 N. Y. 394; *Stevens*v. *Brennan,*79 N. Y. 254; *Hathorne*v. *Hodges,*28 N. Y. 486. It was therefore error to exclude evidence of the representations made by the vendee at the time of the purchase, the falsity of these representations, and the fact that the representations were relied on in making the sale, and generally evidence tending to show the fraudulent intent of the vendee in making the purchase. Besides, the defendant did not show that he detained the goods under any process of court, and the jury were erroneously directed to find a verdict for the defendant. The judgment must therefore be reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to the appellant to abide the event.
EXHIBIT 32.2

              CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2003

In connection with the Quarterly Report of OraLabs Holding Corp. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSBfor the period ending September 30, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report") I, Emile J.
Jordan, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 USC SS.
1350, as adopted pursuant to SS. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to
the best of my knowledge and belief:

(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.


                                        /S/ Emile J. Jordan
                                        ----------------------------------------
                                        Emile J. Jordan, Chief Financial Officer

DATED NOVEMBER 16, 2004

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.

                                       18
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

MISC. NO. 01-17

IN RE: COURT CLOSURE ON FRIDAY, JANUARY 20, 2017, INAUGURATION DAY

O R D E R

Inauguration Day falls on Friday, January 20, 2017, and is considered a legal holiday for

Federal employees who work in the "Inauguration Day area," which includes the District of

Columbia. See 5 U.S.C. § 6103(C). By direction of the Chief Judge, the United States Court of

Appeals for Veterans Claims will be closed on Friday, January 20, 2017.

For purposes of computation and extension of time under the Court's Rules of Practice and

Procedure, Friday, January 20, 2017, will be considered a day when the Court is closed. See U.S.

VET. APP. R. 26(a)(1).

DATED: January 10, 2017 FOR THE COURT:

/s/ Gregory O. Block

GREGORY O. BLOCK

Clerk of the Court
#### UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee v. Luther JONES, Defendant-Appellant.

No. 11-50507.

United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

June 14, 2011.

Joseph H. Gay, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, San Antonio, TX, for Plaintiff-Appellee.

John D. Cline, Law Office of John D. Cline, San Francisco, CA, Stephen Gordon Peters, El Paso, TX, for Defendant-Appellant.

*376Before KING, BENAVIDES, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

IT IS ORDERED that Appellant’s motion for release pending sentencing is DENIED.

*

 Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**Certification of Chief Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Rule 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) of the SecuritiesExchange Act**

 

I, Leada Tak Tai Li, ChiefFinancial Officer of China Precision Steel, Inc., certify that:

 

1)         I have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q ofChina Precision Steel, Inc. (the “registrant”);

 

2)         Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3)         Based on my knowledge, the financialstatements, and other financial information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in thisquarterly report;

 

4)       The registrant’s other certifying officer andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and we have:

 

a)         Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared; and

 

b)        Evaluated the effectiveness of thisregistrant’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls andprocedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation;and

 

c)         Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting.

 

5)         The registrant’s other certifying officer andI have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control overfinancial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee ofregistrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalentfunctions):

 

a)         All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

 

b)        Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal controls over financial reporting.

 

 
| Date: November 19,  2007 | By:    | /s/ Leada  Tak Tai Li   |
|-------------------------------|--------|-------------------------|
|                          |   | Leada Tak Tai Li        |
|                          |   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1956

JONES, BLECHMAN, WOLTZ & KELLY, PC,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

TATYANA A. BABAKAEVA,

Defendant – Appellant,

and

NIKOLAI I. SINKINE,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern 

District of Virginia, at Newport News. Raymond A. Jackson,

District Judge. (4:08-cv-00123-RAJ-JEB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: April 21, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, MICHAEL, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Tatyana A. Babakaeva, Appellant Pro Se. Raymond Bernard Bacon, 

QUADROS & ASSOCIATES, PC, Newport News, Virginia; Lawrence Hoyt 

Glanzer, ROUSSOS LASSITER GLANZER & MARCUS, PLC, Norfolk, 

Virginia, for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Tatyana A. Babakaeva seeks to appeal the district 

court’s order, entered after a hearing, denying her motion to 

strike Plaintiff’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i) notice of 

voluntary dismissal. In its order, the district court stated 

that “[t]he dismissal of the case remains effective as of the 

date of the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal.” We dismiss the 

appeal. 

Babakaeva did not file an answer or a motion for 

summary judgment prior to the filing of the Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) 

notice. Therefore, the voluntary dismissal became effective 

upon filing of the notice with the clerk of the district court. 

At that point, the action terminated, and the district court was 

divested of jurisdiction. See In re Matthews, 395 F.3d 477, 480 

(4th Cir. 2005); Marex Titanic, Inc. v. The Wrecked & Abandoned 

Vessel, 2 F.3d 544, 546 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the 

district court was without authority to conduct the hearing or 

to enter the order Babakaeva seeks to appeal, and that order is 

void. See Safeguard Business Sys., Inc. v. Hoeffel, 907 F.2d 

861 (8th Cir. 1990). The order being void, the voluntary 

dismissal remains effective as of the date the notice of 

dismissal was filed in the district court. 
3

We accordingly deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis 

and dismiss the appeal. We dispense with oral argument because 

the facts and legal contentions are adequately addressed in the 

materials before the court and argument would not aid the 

decisional process. 

DISMISSED
Exhibit 23.01

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-66758, 333-102509,
333-109809, 333-112728, 333-133332, 333-141660, and 333-149281 on Form S-8 and Registration Statement
Nos. 333-140268 and 333-143989 on Form S-3 of our reports dated March 16, 2009, relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial
statement schedule of PDF Solutions, Inc. and subsidiaries (the "Company") (which report expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph regarding the adoption of
Emerging Issues Task Force Issue No. 06-02,Accounting for Sabbatical Leave and Other Similar Benefits Pursuant to FASB Statement
No. 43and Financial Accounting Standards Board Interpretation No. 48,Accounting for Uncertainty in Income Taxesan
interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109), and the effectiveness of the Company's internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this Annual Report on
Form 10-K of the Company for the year ended December 31, 2008.

|                          |  | 
|------------------------- |  | 
|/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP |  | 

San
Jose, California
March 16, 2009

---



QuickLinks