alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 115 (Thursday, June 14, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 32343]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15009]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL01-87-000]


South Eastern Energy Corporation and Morgan Stanley Capital Group 
Inc., Complainants, v. City of Dalton, GA, Georgia Transmission 
Corporation, Georgia Power Company, Municipal Electric Authority of 
Georgia, Respondents; Notice of Complaint

June 8, 2001.
    Take notice that on June 6, 2001, South Eastern Electric 
Corporation (SEEC) and Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. (MSCG) 
(collectively Complainants), tendered for filing a complaint pursuant 
to Section 206 of the Federal Power Act against the City of Dalton, 
Georgia (Dalton), the Georgia Transmission Corporation (GTC), Georgia 
Power Company (Georgia Power), and the Municipal Electric Authority of 
Georgia (MEAG) (collectively the Georgia Interstate Transmission System 
(ITS) Members). Complainants contend that the ITS Members have treated 
Complainants' request to interconnect a new generation facility to the 
ITS in an unjust, unreasonable, and potentially unduly discriminatory 
and preferential manner in violation of the Federal Power Act.
    Copies of the filing were served upon the City of Dalton, GTC, 
Georgia Power, and MEAG.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest this filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice 
and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions or 
protests must be filed on or before June 18, 2001. 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. This 
filing may also be viewed on the Internet at 
http://www.ferc.fed.us/online/rims.htm (call 202-208-2222) for 
assistance. Answers to the complaint shall also be due on or before 
June 18, 2001. Comments, protests and interventions may be filed 
electronically via the internet in lieu of paper. See, 18 CFR 
385.2001(a)(1)(iii) and the instructions on the Commission's web site 
at http://www.ferc.fed.us/efi/doorbell.htm.

Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 01-15009 Filed 6-13-01 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT
32





CERTIFICATION
PURSUANT TO


18
U.S.C. 1350,


CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER


PURSUANT
TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350




In
connection with this Quarterly Report of AMERELITE SOLUTIONS, INC. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 30, 2008 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”),
I, Robert L. Knapp, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer f the
Company, certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec.
1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec. 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:





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






Date:
      August 19, 2008
              By:
              /s/  
      Robert L. KnappPrincipal
      Executive OfficerPrincipal
      Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED
FROM SMITH CORONA CORPORATION CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
AND NOTES THERETO OF THIS FORM 10-Q AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY
BY REFERENCE TO SUCH CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>     1


<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>               JUN-30-2000
<PERIOD-END>                    DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                  444
<SECURITIES>                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                         5,808
<ALLOWANCES>                            284
<INVENTORY>                           6,759
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                     15,158
<PP&E>                               31,569
<DEPRECIATION>                       30,145
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                       15,158
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                 9,265

<BONDS>                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                     0
<PREFERRED>                               0
<COMMON>                                  3
<OTHER-SE>                              557
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>         15,158
<SALES>                              15,892
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                     15,892
<CGS>                                13,857
<TOTAL-COSTS>                        13,857
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                          0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                       12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                     (3,826)
<INCOME-TAX>                             90
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                 (3,916)
<DISCONTINUED>                            0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<CHANGES>                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                        (3,916)
<EPS-BASIC>                          (1.27)
<EPS-DILUTED>                        (1.27)



</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 19

- 0703

_____________________________
J OHN M. M URRAY , Appellant,

v.

F L C OMMISSION ON O FFENDER R EVIEW , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Leon County

. Ronald W. Flury , Judge

. June 24, 2019

P ER C URIAM

.
D ISMISSED

. See Banks v. State , 916 So. 2d 35 (Fla. 1st DCA 2005).

L EWIS , O STERHAUS , and M.K. T HOMAS , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 John M. Murray, pro se
, Appellant.

Rana Wallace, General Counsel, Fl orida Commission on Offender Review, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                               <C>               <C>               <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS              9-MOS             YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>           DEC-31-1997         DEC-31-1997      DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-END>                SEP-30-1997         SEP-30-1997      DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                          0                  23,946           59,063
<SECURITIES>                    0                       0                0
<RECEIVABLES>                   0                   4,932                0
<ALLOWANCES>                    0                       0                0
<INVENTORY>                     0                       0                0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                0                  28,878           59,063
<PP&E>                          0                       0                0
<DEPRECIATION>                  0                       0                0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                  0                  28,878           59,063
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>           0                       0            4,641
<BONDS>                         0                       0                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>           0                       0                0
<PREFERRED>                     0                       0                0
<COMMON>                        0                       0                0
<OTHER-SE>                      0              (1,311,182)      (1,284,997)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>    0                  28,878           59,063
<SALES>                         0                       0                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                0                     424                0
<CGS>                           0                       0                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                   0                       0                0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>           25,638                  71,958                0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                0                       0                0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>              0                       0                0
<INCOME-PRETAX>             9,270                 (26,185)               0
<INCOME-TAX>                9,270                 (26,185)               0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>             0                       0                0
<DISCONTINUED>                  0                       0                0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                 0                       0                0
<CHANGES>                       0                       0                0
<NET-INCOME>                9,270                 (26,185)               0
<EPS-PRIMARY>                   0                       0                0
<EPS-DILUTED>                   0                       0                0
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 119 (Wednesday, June 20, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 33108]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-15466]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Library of Medicine; Amended Notice of Meeting

    Notice is hereby given of a change in the meeting of the Biomedical 
Library Review Committee, June 14, 2001, 8:30 a.m. to June 15, 2001, 
5:00 p.m. National Library of Medicine, 8600 Rockville Pike, Board 
Room, Bethesda, MD 20894 which was published in the Federal Register on 
April 12, 2001, 66FR18962.
    On June 14, 2001 the meeting will be closed to the public from 8:30 
a.m. to 12:00 noon; open to the public from 12:00 noon to 2:30 p.m.; 
and closed to the public from 2:30 p.m. to adjournment. The meeting is 
partially closed to the public.

    Dated: June 13, 2001.
Anna P. Snouffer,
Acting Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy, NIH.
[FR Doc. 01-15466 Filed 6-19-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent *

except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.

The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision **

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

 FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CLARENCE DEMETRIUS TATE,

 Plaintiff - Appellant,

 v.

KEITH STANTON; et al.,

 Defendants - Appellees.

No. 08-56582

D.C. No. 5:08-cv-00024-VAP-OP

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Central District of California

Virginia A. Phillips, District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 15, 2009** 

Before: GOODWIN, WALLACE, and CLIFTON, Circuit Judges.

Clarence Demetrius Tate, a California state prisoner, appeals pro se from the

district court’s judgment dismissing his action brought under the Racketeer

Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), and from the pre-filing order

FILED

DEC 29 2009

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
/Research 2 08-56582

designating him a vexatious litigant. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 

We review de novo the dismissal, Shanks v. Dressel, 540 F.3d 1082, 1086 (9th Cir.

2008), and review for an abuse of discretion the entry of the pre-filing order,

Molski v. Evergreen Dynasty Corp., 500 F.3d 1047, 1056 (9th Cir. 2007) (per

curiam). We may affirm on any ground supported by the record. O’Guinn v.

Lovelock Corr. Ctr., 502 F.3d 1056, 1059 (9th Cir. 2007). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed the action because Tate failed to plead

facts to state a RICO claim against the defendants. See Turner v. Cook, 362 F.3d

1219, 1228-31 (9th Cir. 2004) (discussing elements of a RICO claim); Moss v. U.S.

Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 2009) (stating that a complaint must

allege facts that are “plausibly suggestive of a claim entitling the plaintiff to relief”

(citing Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949 (2009))).

The district court did not abuse its discretion in declaring Tate a vexatious

litigant and entering a pre-filing order against him. See Molski, 500 F.3d at 1057-

61. The court provided Tate with notice and an opportunity to respond, discussed

Tate’s numerous prior lawsuits, found the lawsuits to be frivolous and harassing,

and narrowly tailored its order to address Tate’s particular abuses. See id.

Tate’s remaining contentions are unpersuasive.
/Research 3 08-56582

Tate’s requests for judicial notice are denied. See Santa Monica Food Not

Bombs v. City of Santa Monica, 450 F.3d 1022, 1025 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006) (declining

to take judicial notice of documents that were not relevant to the resolution of the

appeal).

Tate’s motion to consolidate appeals is denied as moot.

AFFIRMED.
[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 12 (Thursday, January 18, 2001)]
[Notices]
[Page 4886]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-1516]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 3550]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determinations: ``The Global Guggenheim: Selections From the Extended 
Collection''; Amendment

DEPARTMENT: United States Department of State.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
[79 Stat. 985, 22 U.S.C. 2459], the Foreign Affairs Reform and 
Restructuring Act of 1998 [112 Stat. 2681 et seq.], Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999 [64 FR 56014], and Delegation of 
Authority No. 236 of October 19, 1999 [64 FR 57920], as amended, I 
hereby determine that one additional object to be included in the 
exhibit, ``The Global Guggenheim: Selections from the Extended 
Collection,'' imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without 
profit within the United States, is of cultural significance. The 
object will be imported pursuant to a loan agreement with a foreign 
lender. I also determine that the temporary exhibition or display of 
the additional object at the Solomon R. Guggenheim Museum, New York, 
New York, from on or about February 6 to on or about April 22, 2001, is 
in the national interest. Public Notice of these determinations is 
ordered to be published in the Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of exhibit objects, contact Julianne C. Simpson, Attorney-Adviser, 
Office of the Legal Adviser, 202/619-6529, and the address is SA-44, 
Room 700, United States Department of State, 301 4th Street, S.W., 
Washington, DC 20547-0001.

    Dated: January 12, 2001.
William B. Bader,
Assistant Secretary for Educational and Cultural Affairs, Department of 
State.
[FR Doc. 01-1516 Filed 1-17-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-08-P
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 22

- 00276

- CV

M AUREEN S COTT

, Appellant

V

.

W AYNE K EITH S MITH , Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 211th District Court

of Denton C ounty ( 20

- 7037

- 211 )

March 28, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Wallach

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the judgment of the tri al

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Appellant Maureen Scott shal l pay all costs of t his

appeal

, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By _ /s/ Mike Wallach

___________________ Justice Mike Wallach
August 16, 2012

JUDGMENT

The Fourteenth Court of Appeals

DAVID BUZZELLI, Appellant

NO. 14-12-00609-CV V.

MICHAEL "MATT" MILAN EMANUEL, MICHAEL KLARE, GREG BRYAN, 

INDIVIDUALLY AND INSPECTORMAN.COM, L.L.C. D/B/A BRYAN AND 

BRYAN INSPECTORS, L.L.C., BRYAN AND BRYAN PEST AND TERMITE 

INSPECTIONS, L.L.C., BOB RYAN, INDIVIDUALLY AND ON BEHALF OF 

ROBERT RYAN REALTORS, Appellees

________________________________

Today the Court heard appellant's motion to dismiss the appeal from the judgment 

signed by the court below on April 2, 2012. Having considered the motion and found it 

meritorious, we order the appeal DISMISSED.

We further order that all costs incurred by reason of this appeal be paid by 

appellant, David Buzzelli.

We further order that mandate be issued immediately.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.
Page 1 

Commodity Futures Trading Commission 

CEA CASES 

NAME: WALSTON & CO., INC., PAT G. NOEL, AND CARLTON M. SMITH 

DOCKET NUMBER: 130 

DOCUMENT TYPE: ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Commodity Exchange Authority 

Washington, D. C. 20250 

ISSUANCE OF COMPLAINT -- CEA DOCKET NO. 130 

(Administrative Hearing under the Commodity Exchange Act) 

A complaint and notice of hearing has been signed by the Assistant Secretary 

of Agriculture, charging violation of the Commodity Exchange Act by: 

Walston & Co., Inc., 

Pat G. Noel, and 

Carlton M. Smith 

(Houston, Texas) 

The complaint alleges that Walston & Co., Inc., a registered futures 

commission merchant under the act, and two account executives employed in its 

Houston, Texas, office selectively applied futures contracts in the accounts of 

certain customers so that larger profits or smaller losses than actually existed 

were reported to them. The complaint charges that as a result, for a period of 

time, the customers were deceived as to the actual amounts of their losses. 

The issuance of a complaint under the Commodity Exchange Act does not 

constitute proof of violation of the law. Such violation is established only 

when the Judicial Officer of the Department has made a determination that the 

evidence substantiates allegations in the complaint. Complaints are filed in 

the Office of the Hearing Clerk of the Department of Agriculture and are a 

matter of public record. Pending disposition by the Judicial Officer, it is the 

policy of the Commodity Exchange Authority not to comment or elaborate on 

charges contained in complaints or to discuss evidence on which they are based. 

A public hearing on the complaint is scheduled to be held before a referee at 

10:00 a.m., local time, November 17, 1965, in Houston, Texas. 

LOAD-DATE: June 12, 2008 
Page 2
Abatement Order filed May 7 , 2015

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 14

- 00410

- CV DOV AVNI KAMINETZKY , Appellant

V. DOSOHS I, LTD , Appellee On Appeal from the 11th District Court Harris County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. 1997

- 40590



### ORDER

After a non

-

jury trial, appellant brings this appeal from a judgment signed March 31, 2014 . Appellant timely requested findings of fact and conclusions of law and timely reminded the trial court when the findings and conclusions were overdue. The trial court did not file the requeste d findings and conclusions. On April 20, 2015 , appellant asked this court to order the trial court to find findings of fact and conclusions of law. When an appellant timely files a reques t for findings of fact and conclusions of law and a timely notice of past due findings, the trial court’s error in failing to file findings of fact and conclusions of law is generally presumed to be harmful,unless the record before the appellate court aff irmatively shows that the complaining party has suffered no injury. See Cherne Indus., Inc. v. Magallanes , 763 S.W.2d 768, 772 (Tex. 1989); Electronic Power Design, Inc., v. R.A. Hanson Co., Inc., 821 S.W.2d 170, 171 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, n o writ). Appellant avers in his motion that he cannot properly present or frame its issues without the findings and conclusions. In this case, therefore, we cannot say that the record affirmatively discloses no injury. Because the trial judge continues
t o serve on the district court, the error in this case is remediable. See Tex. R. App

. P. 44.4. The proper remedy is to abate the appeal and direct the trial court to correct its error. See Zeiba v. Martin , 928 S.W.2d 782, 786 (Tex. App.

— Houston [14th Dist. ] 1996, no writ). We ORDER the trial court to file findings of fact and conclusions of law on or before May 27 , 2015 . Within ten days after the trial court has filed findings of fact and conclusions of law, any party may file a request for specified additi onal or amended findings or conclusions. The trial court shall file any additional or amended findings that are appropriate within ten days after such a request is filed. The trial court’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and any additional and ame nded findings or conclusions, shall be included in a supplemental clerk’s record to be filed with this court on or before June 29 , 2015

. The appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this c ourt’s active docket. The appeal will be reinst ated on this c ourt’s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this c ourt. The c ourt will also consider an appropriate motion to reinstate the appeal filed by either party, or the c ourt may reinstate the appeal on its o wn motion.
It is so ORDERED.
PER CURIAM
#### Tyrone HURT, Appellant v. AMERICAN GOVERNORS AND CONFERENCE OF MAYORS, Appellees.

No. 06-5302.

United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.

Dec. 22, 2006.

Tyrone Hurt, Washington, DC, pro se.

BEFORE: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and RANDOLPH and GARLAND, Circuit Judges.

*JUDGMENT*

PER CURIAM.

This appeal was considered on the record from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and on the brief filed by appellant. It is

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the district court’s order filed September 28, 2006 be affirmed. The district court properly dismissed this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, because appellant lacks Article III standing. *See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife,*504 U.S. 555, 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992) (to establish injury in fact, a party must allege an invasion of a legally protected interest that is concrete and particularized, as well as actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical). *See also D.C. Common Cause v. District of Columbia,*858 F.2d 1, 3-5 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published. The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after resolution of any timely petition for rehearing or petition for rehearing en banc. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 41(b); D.C.Cir. Rule 41.