alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 109 (Wednesday, June 6, 2001)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 30335]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-14140]


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

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 90

[PR Docket No. 93-144; FCC 01-150]


Amendment of Part of the Commission's Rules To Facilitate Future 
Development of SMR Systems in the 800 MHz Frequency Band

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission, Wireless Telecommunications 
Bureau.

ACTION: Final rule; denial of petition for reconsideration.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission terminates the Fresno Remand Order proceeding 
and denies Chadmoore Wireless Group, Inc.'s (``Chadmoore'') Petition 
for Reconsideration filed on January 24, 2000. Chadmoore raised no new 
issues that would persuade the Commission to reverse their previous 
decision in the Fresno Remand Order.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Kunze, Wireless 
Telecommunications Bureau, at (202) 418-7887.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Federal 
Communications Commission's Order On Reconsideration, FCC 01-150, in PR 
Docket No. 93-144, adopted on May 1, 2001 and released on May 9, 2001. 
The full text of this Order on Reconsideration is available for 
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC 
Reference Center, Room CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20554. The complete text may be purchased from the Commission's.
    1. In this document the Commission reviews the Petition for 
Reconsideration, filed on January 24, 2000 by Chadmoore Wireless Group, 
Inc. (Chadmoore), seeking reconsideration of the Commission's Fresno 
Remand Order.
    2. Chadmoore presented no new arguments in its Petition for 
Reconsideration, and the Commission sees nothing in the argument 
Chadmoore has made that would lead the Commission to change its 
decision in the Fresno Remand Order.
    3. Pursuant to section 1.106 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 
1.106, the Petition for Reconsideration filed by Chadmoore Wireless 
Group, Inc. on January 24, 2000 in the above-captioned proceeding Is 
Denied.
    4. Pursuant to sections 1, 4(i), and 332 of the Communications Act 
of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i), and 332, this proceeding Is 
Terminated.

Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Deputy, Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-14140 Filed 6-5-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
#### Kenneth WYNDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. James McMAHON, David Spahl, Robert Jones, Louis B. Barbaria and Craig Masterson, individually, Josh Keats, Defendants-Appellees, Marine Midland Bank, Defendant.

No. 05-5668-cv.

United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.

June 5, 2006.

Richard J. Merritt, Lindenhurst, NY, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

Carol Fischer, Assistant Solicitor General of the State of New York (Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, of counsel, Michael S. Belohlavek, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.

*93Present: JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN, DENNIS JACOBS and B.D. PARKER, Circuit Judges.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

We assume familiarity with the facts, the procedural history, and the issues on appeal.

“[W]e lack jurisdiction to hear an appeal unless the decision is a ‘final decision[],’ ... that ends the litigation, leaving no issues unresolved between any of the parties and nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” *MacEwen Petroleum, Inc. v. Tarbell,*136 F.3d 263, 264 (2d Cir.1998) (emendation in original) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1291). An order of the district court denied plaintiffs motion for default judgment. Then, without explanation, the district court seemingly entered judgment. *See*Appx. (entry of judgment citing to memorandum order denying motion for default judgment); *see also*Appx. at 15 (bearing docket entry entitled “CLERK’S JUDGMENT”). Although oral argument was confusing in several respects, both parties agree that the case should continue in the district court. The district court has provided no explanation as to why judgment was entered. Accordingly, we vacate the entry of judgment.

However, because judgment had been entered, Plaintiff Kenneth Wynder, who claims that his employer discriminated against him on the basis of race, properly asked this court to reverse the denial of his motion for default judgment. We review a district court’s ruling on a motion for default judgment for abuse of discretion, taking into account “the willfulness of the default, the existence of a meritorious defense, and the level of prejudice that the non-defaulting party may suffer should relief be granted.” *Pecarsky v. Galaxiworld.com, Ltd.,*249 F.3d 167, 171 (2d Cir.2001). Here, the delay in filing was inadvertent and no prejudice has been suffered. Therefore, the district court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiffs motion.

For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the district court is VACATED and the case is REMANDED for proceedings consistent with this order.
Exhibit
10.2


 





 


NOTE (“the
Note”)


 


Power3 Medical Products, Inc., a New York
corporation (the “Company”) for value received hereby promises to pay Ira L. Goldknopf (“Payee”) on or
before March 6, 2006, (“Maturity Date”); the principal amount of thirty nine thousand two hundred thirty one dollars ($39,231.00) (“Principal”).


 


Should the Principal not be repaid as of March
6, 2006 interest of 6 % per year on any unpaid Principal amount will be earned
by the Payee until such time as all of the Principal amount is repaid.  This Note may be repaid at any time prior to March
6, 2006 without interest or penalty.


 


In no event shall interest contracted for,
charged or received hereunder, plus any other charges in connection herewith
which constitute interest, exceed the maximum interest permitted by applicable
law. The amounts of such interest or other charges previously paid to the
holder of the Note, if any, in excess of the amounts permitted by applicable
law shall be applied by the holder of the Note to reduce the principal of the
indebtedness evidenced by the Note, or, at the option of the holder of the
Note, be refunded. To the extent permitted by applicable law, determination of
the legal maximum amount of interest shall at all times be made by amortizing,
prorating, allocating and spreading in equal parts during the period of the
full stated term of the loan and indebtedness, all interest at any time
contracted for, charged or received from the Maker hereof in connection with
the loan and indebtedness evidenced hereby, so that the actual rate of interest
on account of such indebtedness is uniform throughout the term hereof.


 


Notices, payments, requests, and other
communications to the respective parties hereunder shall be in writing, and
shall be deemed received when delivered personally, by facsimile, or first
class certified mail, return receipt requested and postage prepaid, as follows:


 


If to the lender:


 


Ira L. Goldknopf


3400 Research Forest Parkway


Woodlands, Texas 77381


 


If to the Company:


 


Power3 Medical Products, Inc.


3400 Research Forest Parkway


Woodlands, Texas 77381


 


This Note is governed by and is to be
construed in accordance with the law of the State of Texas.


 


	
  Payee

  	
   

  	
  Power3
  Medical Products, Inc.

  	
   

  	
  Date

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
  /s/: Ira L. Goldknopf

  	
   

  	
  /s/ John P. Burton

  	
   

  	
  October
  17, 2005

  
	
  Ira
  L. Goldknopf

  	
   

  	
  By:
  John P. Burton

  	
   

  	
   

  
	
   

  	
   

  	
  Its:
  CFO
EXHIBIT 23.6
                                                                   ------------



                               CONSENT OF EXPERT

          Reference is made to the Annual  Report on Form 40-F (the "40-F") of
Ivanhoe  Mines  Ltd.  (the  "Company")  to be  filed  with the  United  States
Securities and Exchange  Commission pursuant to the Securities Exchange Act of
1934, as amended.

          I  hereby  consent  to the  use of and  reference  to my  name  as a
Qualified  Person for the Oyu Tolgoi  Technical Report dated March 2008, under
the heading "Item 3:  Description of the Business - Oyu Tolgoi Copper and Gold
Project, Mongolia" in the Company's Annual Information Form for the year ended
December 31, 2007, dated March 28, 2008, and in the 40-F.

Sincerely,


/s/ Stephen Torr
------------------------------------------
Title:   Chief Resource Geologist
Company: Ivanhoe Mines Ltd.

Date:  March 28, 2008
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of
Strategic Storage Trust, Inc., (the Company), in connection with the Companys Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 2010 (the Report) hereby certifies, to his knowledge, that:



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



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



|                       |  |     |  |                                                                              
|---------------------- |  | --- |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|Dated: August 11, 2010 |  | By: |  | /s/ H. Michael Schwartz                                                      
|                       |  |     |  | H. Michael Schwartz
President, CEO and Director
(Principal Executive Officer)
# C_2010250EN.01000901.xml

| 17.9.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 250/9 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

17.9.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 250/9

---

Draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 — Council position

2010/C 250/06

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and in particular Article 314 thereof, in conjunction with the Treaty establishing the European Atomic and Energy Community, and in particular Article 106a thereof,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the general budget of the European Communities (1), as amended by Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) No 1995/2006 of 13 December 2006 (2), and in particular Article 37 thereof,

1

2

Whereas:

| — | the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3), |
| --- | --- |

—

the European Union's general budget for the financial year 2010 was definitively adopted on 17 December 2009 (3),

3

| — | on 12 April 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2010, |
| --- | --- |

—

on 12 April 2010, the Commission submitted a proposal containing draft amending budget No 3 to the general budget for the financial year 2010,

HAS DECIDED AS FOLLOWS:

Sole Article

The Council's position on draft amending budget No 3 of the European Union for the financial year 2010 was adopted on 13 September 2010.

The full text can be accessed for consultation or downloading on the Council's website: http://www.consilium.europa.eu/

Done at Brussels, 13 September 2010.

For the Council

The President

S. VANACKERE

---

(1)  OJ L 248, 16.9.2002, p. 1, with corrigenda in OJ L 25, 30.1.2003, p. 43 and in OJ L 99, 14.4.2007, p. 18.

1

(2)  OJ L 390, 30.12.2006, p. 1.

2

(3)  OJ L 64, 12.3.2010.

3

---
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

**LAKE AREACORN PROCESSORS, LLC**

 

**CERTIFICATIONOF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 (18 U.S.C. 1350)**

 

The undersigned, BrianWoldt, the Chief Financial Officer of Lake Area Corn Processors, LLC (the “Company”),has executed this Certification in connection with the filing with theSecurities and Exchange Commission of the Company’s Annual Report on Form 10-Kfor the year ended December 31, 2004 (the “Report”).

 

The undersigned herebycertifies that:

 

•                  the Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

 

•                  the information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, theundersigned has executed this Certification as of the 31st day ofMarch, 2005

 

 
|   | /s/ Brian Woldt         |   |
|--------|-------------------------|--------|
|   | Brian Woldt             |
|   | Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
#### In the Matter of Eddie James Lee, Appellant, v Mohawk Time Allowance Committee et al., Respondents. (And Another Action.)

Submitted October 11, 2011;

decided December 13, 2011

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed as untimely *(see*CPLR 5513 [b]).
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

**COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,**

**Respondent**

**v.**

**ALAN J. NEALLY,**

**Petitioner :** 

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**:**

**: No. 416 MAL 2016** 

**Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court** 

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW **, this 13th day of September, 2016, the Petition for Allowance of** 

**Appeal is** DENIED

**.**
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 918 Engrossed in House (EH)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 918

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, as the ``Stan Lundine 
                        Post Office Building''.

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

SECTION 1. STAN LUNDINE POST OFFICE BUILDING.

    (a) Designation.--The facility of the United States Postal Service 
located at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, shall be known 
and designated as the ``Stan Lundine Post Office Building''.
    (b) References.--Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, 
paper, or other record of the United States to the facility referred to 
in subsection (a) shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Stan 
Lundine Post Office Building''.

            Passed the House of Representatives March 23, 2009.

            Attest:

                                                                 Clerk.
111th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 918

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
 at 300 East 3rd Street in Jamestown, New York, as the ``Stan Lundine 
                        Post Office Building''.
```
Exhibit 7.3



MTR Corporation Limited



Computation of

Ratio of Earnings to
Fixed Charges

Based on Hong Kong GAAP

(Expressed in millions of HK$)



|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|----------------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------- |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | ----- |  | -----
|                                                                  |  | As of December 31
|                                                                  |  | 1999              |  | 2000  |  | 2001  |  | 2002  |  | 2003 
|Profit before tax                                                 |  | 2,116             |  | 4,055 |  | 4,278 |  | 4,213 |  | 5,198
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Fixed Charges:                                                    |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Interest expenses                                                 |  | 1,680             |  | 1,942 |  | 1,870 |  | 1,748 |  | 1,636
|Amortization of debt discount or deferred debt costs              |  | 32                |  | 46    |  | 53    |  | 23    |  | 24   
|Representative portion of interest in operating lease expenses(1) |  | 13                |  | 6     |  | 5     |  | 4     |  | 4    
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Total fixed charges (B)                                           |  | 1,725             |  | 1,994 |  | 1,928 |  | 1,775 |  | 1,664
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Less: fixed charges capitalized                                   |  | 383               |  | 797   |  | 1,029 |  | 621   |  | 104  
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|                                                                  |  | 1,342             |  | 1,197 |  | 899   |  | 1,154 |  | 1,560
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Earnings before taxes and fixed charges (A)                       |  | 3,458             |  | 5,252 |  | 5,177 |  | 5,367 |  | 6,758
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      
|Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges (A)/(B)                        |  | 2.00              |  | 2.63  |  | 2.69  |  | 3.02  |  | 4.06 
|                                                                  |  |                   |  |       |  |       |  |       |  |      

---

|(1) |  | The balance represented one third of operating lease expenses of the Group.
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v John Lingle, Appellant.

Submitted April 19, 2010;

decided April 29, 2010

Motion for assignment of counsel granted and Robert S. Dean, Esq., Center for Appellate Litigation, 74 Trinity Place, 11th Floor, New York, NY 10006 assigned as counsel to the appellant on the appeal herein.
Exhibit 10(c)




Exhibit 10 (c)    



CONSENT OF
INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM  



We hereby consent to the
incorporation by reference in this Amendment No. 16 to the Merrill Lynch Principal
Protected Trust’s Registration Statement on Form N-1A of our report dated
February 25, 2005, except as to the effects of reclassifications of 2004, 2003, and 2002
balances for reportable segments as reflected in Notes 9 and 19 for which the date is July
11, 2005, relating to the financial statements, management’s assessment of the
effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting and the effectiveness of
internal control over financial reporting, which appears in Bank of America
Corporation’s Current Report on Form 8-K dated July 12, 2005. 



/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP  



Charlotte, North Carolina
October 26,
2005
# C_2010335EN.01000701.xml

| 11.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 335/7 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

11.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 335/7

---

Notice concerning the countervailing measures in force in respect of imports into the Union of certain polyethylene terephthalate originating in India: change of the name of a company subject to an individual countervailing duty

2010/C 335/07

Imports of certain polyethylene teraphthalate (PET) originating in India are subject to a definitive countervailing duty, imposed by Council Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 (1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1286/2008 (2) (‘Regulation (EC) No 193/2007’).

1

2

South Asian Petrochem Ltd, a company located in India, whose exports to the Union of PET are subject to an individual countervailing duty of 106,5 EUR/ton imposed by Article 1(2) of Regulation (EC) No 193/2007, has informed the Commission that on 5 January 2010, as a result of a merger with Dhunseri Tea and Industries Ltd, its name changed to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited. The merger was approved on 2 July 2010 by the local court.

The company has argued that the change of name does not affect the right of the company to benefit from the individual countervailing duty rate applied to the company under its previous name of South Asian Petrochem Ltd.

The Commission has examined the information provided and has concluded that the change of name in no way affects the findings of Regulation (EC) No 193/2007. Therefore, the reference in Article 1(2) and Article 2(3) of Regulation (EC) No 193/2007 to:

South Asian Petrochem Ltd

should be read as:

Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited

The TARIC additional code A585 previously attributed to South Asian Petrochem Ltd shall apply to Dhunseri Petrochem & Tea Limited.

---

(1)  OJ L 59, 27.2.2007, p. 34.

1

(2)  OJ L 340, 19.12.2008, p. 1.

2

---
# C_2010337EN.01002701.xml

| 14.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 337/27 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

14.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 337/27

---

STATE AID — ROMANIA

(Articles 107 to 109 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union)

Commission notice pursuant to Article 108(2) of the TFEU — Withdrawal of notification

State aid C 36/09 — Temporary Framework Guarantee in favour of Oltchim

(Text with EEA relevance)

2010/C 337/08

The Commission has decided to close the formal investigation procedure under Article 108(2) of the TFEU, initiated on 19 November 2009 (1) in respect of the measure referred to above, recording that Romania has confirmed that the aid had been not granted.

1

I.   Procedure

Procedure

By decision of 19 November 2009, the Commission decided to initiate the formal investigation procedure referred to in Article 108(2) TFEU in respect of a State guarantee in favour of Romanian petrochemical company Oltchim.

II.   Description

Description

The State guarantee of EUR 62 million for a commercial loan of EUR 62 million was to be issued under the Temporary Framework for State aid measures to support access to finance in the current financial and economic crisis.

The Commission raised doubts as to whether Oltchim fulfilled the eligibility criteria established by the Temporary Framework in order to be eligible for such aid.

III.   Assessment

Assessment

In the course of the procedure, Romania declared that the mentioned aid has not been granted.

IV.   Conclusion

Conclusion

Therefore the Commission decided to close the procedure laid down in Article 108(2) TFEU on the ground that it is without object, insofar as the aid has not been granted.

---

(1)  OJ C 19, 26.1.2010, p. 31.

1

---