alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 163 (Wednesday, August 24, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 49498-49499]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-16810]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R05-OAR-2005-MN-0002; FRL-7958-3]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota; Withdrawal of Direct Final Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: Due to the receipt of an adverse comment the EPA is 
withdrawing the July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38025), direct final rule approving 
revisions to the sulfur dioxide requirements for Flint Hills Resources, 
L.P. of Dakota County, Minnesota. In the direct final rule, EPA stated 
that if adverse comments were submitted by August 1, 2005, the rule 
would be withdrawn and not take effect. On July 28, 2005, EPA received 
a comment from the Leech Lake Band of Ojibwe. EPA believes the comment 
is adverse and, therefore, EPA is withdrawing the direct final rule. 
EPA will address the comment in a subsequent final action based upon 
the proposed action also published on July 1, 2005 (70 FR 38071). EPA 
will not institute a second comment period on this action.

DATES: The direct final rule published at 70 FR 38025 on July 1, 2005 
is withdrawn as of August 24, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, Telephone: (312) 886-6524, e-mail: 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c8baa9bde6a5a9bcbca0adbf88adb8a9e6afa7be"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="651704104b080411110d0012250015044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Sulfur oxides.

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

    Dated: August 8, 2005.
Norman R. Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

PART 52--[AMENDED]


Sec.  52.1220  [Amended]

    Accordingly, the revision of 40 CFR 52.1220(d) (which published in 
the Federal Register on July 1, 2005 at 70

[[Page 49499]]

FR 38025) is withdrawn as of August 24, 2005.

[FR Doc. 05-16810 Filed 8-23-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1999
<CASH>                                          22,538
<SECURITIES>                                    56,250
<RECEIVABLES>                                  165,163
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               243,951
<PP&E>                                         193,063
<DEPRECIATION>                               (121,412)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               6,765,903
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,277,400
<BONDS>                                      1,821,381
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        10,784
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,656,339
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 6,765,903
<SALES>                                         86,468
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                86,468
<CGS>                                            6,938
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,575,882
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               708,419
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                            (60,938)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (848,870)
<INCOME-TAX>                                     1,600
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (850,470)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 43,451
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (807,019)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.07)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.07)


</TABLE>
**Exhibit 32.2**

 

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 theannual report of CharterMac (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the year endingDecember 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on thedate hereof (the “Report”), I, Stuart A. Rothstein, Chief Financial Officer ofthe Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-OxleyAct of 2002, that:

 

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

 

(2)  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

 
| By:    | /s/  Stuart A. Rothstein |   |
|--------|--------------------------|--------|
|   | Stuart  A. Rothstein     |
|   | Chief  Financial Officer |
|   | March  15, 2004          |

 

Asigned original of this written statement required by Section 906 has beenprovided to CharterMac and will be retained by CharterMac and furnished to theSecurities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
WEBSTER v. WEBSTER

No. COA06-556.

No. COA06-855

Court of Appeals of North Carolina

Filed April 17, 2007

Certification Date May 7, 2007

Appeal from Watauga (04CVD559).

Cases reported without published opinion. Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part.
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

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

_______________________________________ __ Clerk May 25, 2010

p0517 

# Order

May 25, 2010

140007

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 140007 COA: 292693 Wayne CC: 04-012384-02 DERMAINE A. RIOS, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the October 19, 2009 order of the Court of Appeals is considered , and it is DENIED, because the defendant has
failed to meet the burden of establishi ng entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D).
EXHIBIT 15.1





Club  Corporation  International
Dallas,  Texas

Ladies  and  Gentlemen:

Re:    Registration  Statement  Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 and 333-57107

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of  the use therein of our report dated July 23, 1998, related to our
review  of  interim  financial  information.

Pursuant  to  Rule  436(c)  under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of  sections  7  and  11  of  the  Act.




                                   KPMG  Peat  Marwick  LLP



Dallas,  Texas
August 3,  1998
HENRY H. SHAVITZ, for himself and others similarly situated v. CITY OF HIGH POINT, a Municipal Corporation, ELECTRONIC DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION, a Corporation doing business in North Carolina, ALLEN L. PEARSON, II, PEEK TRAFFIC, INC., a Corporation doing business in North Carolina, PHIL WYLIE, SREEKANTH NANDAGIRI, ARNOLD KOONCE, Mayor of the City of High Point, ALBERT A. CAMPBELL, M. CHRISTOPHER WHITLEY, AARON M. CHRISTOPHER, RONALD B. WILKINS, M.C. ROWE, WILLIAM S. BENCINI, JR., DAVID B. WALL, each Members of the High Point City Council, STRIB BOYNTON, City Manager of the City of High Point and THE GUILFORD COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION.

No. 336P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, P.L.L.C., by Burley B. Mitchell, Jr., Sean E. Andrussier, Raleigh, and Gusti W. Frankel, Winston-Salem, for the City of High Point.

Brooks, Pierce, McLendon, Humphrey & Leonard, L.L.P., by Robert J. King III, Jill R. Wilson, and Elizabeth V. LaFollette, Greensboro, for the Guilford County Board of Education.

Andrew L. Romanet, Jr., General Counsel, Gregory F. Schwitzgebel III, Senior Assistant General Counsel, for City of Charlotte.

Robert Hagemann, for the North Carolina League of Municipalities, amicus curiae.

Tharrington Smith, L.L.P., by Michael Crowell and Deborah Stagner, and Allison Schafer, Raleigh, for the North Carolina School Boards Association, amicus curiae.

Prior report: 177 N.C.App. 465, 630 S.E.2d 4.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the notice of appeal from the North Carolina Court of Appeals, filed by the Defendant (City of High Point) on the 20th day of June 2006 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-30, and the motion to dismiss the appeal for lack of substantial constitutional question filed by the Defendant (Guilford County Brd. of Ed.), the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the motion to dismiss the appeal is

"Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."

*846Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 20th day of June 2006 by Defendant (City of High Point) in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   OTHER
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          AUG-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             SEP-02-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-16-1997
<CASH>                                          29,452
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   82,382
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      6,190
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                48,444
<PP&E>                                         383,873
<DEPRECIATION>                                  40,818
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 548,192
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           15,827
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             2
<OTHER-SE>                                     526,877
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   548,192
<SALES>                                         32,172
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                65,000
<CGS>                                           31,051
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,261
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                 778
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 12,378
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,075
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,303
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,303
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .31
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .31
        

</TABLE>
STATE of North Carolina v. Ricky Kenard ROYSTER.

No. 168P07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

June 27, 2007.

Stephen Rabil, for Royster.

Tiare Smiley, Special Deputy Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

*ORDER*

Upon consideration of the petition filed on the 10th day of April 2007 by Defendant in this matter for discretionary review of the decision of the North Carolina Court of Appeals pursuant to G.S. 7A-31, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals:

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 27th day of June 2007."
STATE v. Jeremy Dushane MURRELL.

No. 484A06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

July 26, 2007.

Robert Montgomery, Special Deputy Attorney General, Amy Kunstling, Assistant Attorney General, Thomas J. Keith, District Attorney, for State of NC.

The following order has been entered on the second motion filed on the 24th day of July 2007 by Defendant for extension of time to file brief:

"Motion Allowed. Defendant (Jeremy Dushane Murrell) shall have up to and including the 29th day of August 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court in conference this the 26th day of July 2007."
II 

110TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 3032 

To increase the standard mileage rate for use of an automobile for business, 

medical, and moving deduction purposes for 2008 and permanently increase such rate for charitable deduction purposes under the Internal 

Revenue Code of 1986 and to temporarily increase the reimbursement 

rate for use of an automobile by Federal employees. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 19, 2008 

Mr. SCHUMER introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred 

to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To increase the standard mileage rate for use of an automobile for business, medical, and moving deduction purposes for 2008 and permanently increase such rate for 

charitable deduction purposes under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 and to temporarily increase the reimbursement rate for use of an automobile by Federal 

employees. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Reimbursing Our 

5 American Drivers (ROAD) Act of 2008’’. 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
2 

•S 3032 IS

1 SEC. 2. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN MILEAGE RATE DEDUC2 TION. 

3 (a) RATE FOR BUSINESS, MEDICAL, AND MOVING

4 USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE.—For purposes of sections 

5 162(a), 213(d)(1)(B), and 217 of the Internal Revenue 

6 Code of 1986, the standard mileage rate for use of an 

7 automobile shall be 70 cents per mile for any use after 

8 December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2009. 

9 (b) RATE FOR CHARITABLE USE OF AN AUTO10 MOBILE.—Section 170(i) of the Internal Revenue Code of 

11 1986 is amended by striking ‘‘14 cents’’ and inserting ‘‘40 

12 cents’’. 

13 SEC. 3. TEMPORARY INCREASE IN REIMBURSEMENT RATE 

14 FOR USE OF AN AUTOMOBILE FOR FEDERAL 

15 EMPLOYEES. 

16 For purposes of section 5704 of title 5, United States 

17 Code, the standard mileage rate for use of an automobile 

18 for an employee who is engaged on official business for 

19 the Government shall be 70 cents per mile for any use 

20 after December 31, 2007, and before January 1, 2009. 

Æ 


jbell on PROD1PC69 with BILLS
STATE v. HUNTER.

No. COA06-1203.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed July 3, 2007.

Certification Date July 23, 2007.

Appeal from the Mecklenburg (01CRS54637, 05CRS55219).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.
FARM BUREAU v. ARMWOOD, et al.

No. 99A07.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 16, 2007.

Glenn C. Raynor, Raleigh, for Farm Bureau.

Frank A. Cassiano, Jr., Greenville, John Bramble, Charles David Creech, New Bern, for Armwood, et al.

The following order has been entered on the motion filed on the 14th day of March 2007 by Plaintiff for Extension of Time to File Brief:

"Motion Allowed. Plaintiff (N.C. Farm Bureau) shall have up to and including the 20th day of April 2007 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court. By order of the Court In conference this the 16th day of March 2007."

Justice HUDSON recused.
# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2013Show full title

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2013 of 19 August 2013 withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications            for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas         

        - Previous
        - Next

U.K.

# Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 792/2013                     

# of 19 August 2013

# withdrawing the suspension of submission of applications for import licences for sugar products under certain tariff quotas

THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION,

Having regard to the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007 of 22 October 2007 establishing a common organisation of agricultural                           markets and on specific provisions for certain agricultural products (‘Single CMO’ Regulation)(1),                        

Having regard to Commission Regulation (EC) No 891/2009 of 25 September 2009 opening and providing for the administration                           of certain Community tariff quotas in the sugar sector(2), and in particular Article 5(2) thereof,                        

Whereas:

(1)The submission of applications for import licences concerning order numbers 09.4319 and 09.4320 was suspended as from 27 September                              2012 by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 of 26 September 2012 fixing the allocation coefficient for the                              issuing of import licences applied for from 8 to 14 September 2012 for sugar products under certain tariff quotas and suspending                              submission of applications for such licences(3), in accordance with Regulation (EC) No 891/2009.

(2)Following notifications on unused and/or partly used licences, quantities became available again for these order numbers.                              The suspension of applications should therefore be withdrawn,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

# Article 1U.K.

The suspension of submission of applications for import licences for order numbers 09.4319 and 09.4320 as from 27 September                     2012 laid down by Implementing Regulation (EU) No 879/2012 is withdrawn.                  

# Article 2U.K.

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

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

Done at Brussels, 19 August 2013.

*For the Commission, On behalf of the President*,                           

Jerzy Plewa                            

*Director-General for Agriculture and Rural Development*                            

1

OJ L 299, 16.11.2007, p. 1.                           

2

OJ L 254, 26.9.2009, p. 82.                           

3

OJ L 259, 27.9.2012, p. 3.
##### Form 10-Q Table of Contents

Exhibit 32.2

# 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 Quarterly Report of Eden Bioscience Corporation (the
Company) on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2004 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Bradley
S. Powell, 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:

(1)       
          The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
          Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m or 78o(d)); and

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

Dated: May 14, 2004

| |  |  |                                                                                                      
| |  |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| |  |  | /s/ Bradley S. PowellBradley S. PowellVice President of Finance, Chief FinancialOfficer and Secretary

---
EXHIBIT 15.1





ClubCorp, Inc.
Dallas, Texas

Ladies and Gentlemen:

Re:  Registration Statements Nos. 33-89818, 33-96568, 333-08041 and 333-57107

With  respect  to  the  subject  registration  statements,  we  acknowledge  our
awareness  of the use therein of our report dated April 28, 2000, related to our
review of interim financial information.

Pursuant  to  Rule  436(c)  under the Securities Act of 1933, such report is not
considered  part  of  a  registration  statement  prepared  or  certified  by an
accountant or a report prepared or certified by an accountant within the meaning
of sections 7 and 11 of the Act.




                                   KPMG LLP



Dallas, Texas
May 4, 2000
Estate of Monroe M. REDDEN, Jr., Deceased, by E.K. Morley, Administrator CTA v. Barbara Jean REDDEN, Defendant.

No. 554P06.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

May 3, 2007.

Philip S. Anderson, Robert B. Long, Jr., Asheville, for Barbara Redden.

E.K. Morley, Hendersonville, for Estate of Monroe Redden.

Prior report: 179 N.C.App. 113, 632 S.E.2d 794.

*ORDER*

Defendant's petition for discretionary review is allowed for the limited purpose of remanding this case to the Court of Appeals for consideration of whether plaintiff's admission of defendant's deposition and failure to object to incompetent portions of said deposition evidence, during the partial summary judgment hearing, constituted a waiver of the protections of N.C.R.E. Rule 601(c), the North Carolina Deadman's Statute.

*639By order of the Court in Conference, this 3rd day of May, 2007.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>	   		5
<CIK>               000929540
<NAME>              SELKIRK COGEN PARTNERS, L.P.
<MULTIPLIER>	 	1,000
       
<S>				                  				<C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>						            9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>					        	Dec-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>			          				Jan-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>				            	    Sep-30-1998
<CASH>				                		    32213
<SECURITIES>						            0
<RECEIVABLES>						           	14322
<ALLOWANCES>						            0
<INVENTORY>							            5236
<CURRENT-ASSETS>			         			52288
<PP&E>							                371299
<DEPRECIATION>						          	59114
<TOTAL-ASSETS>          						402636
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>	     				    23268
<BONDS>								            383932
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>			     	     	0
<PREFERRED>							           	0
<COMMON>							            0
<OTHER-SE>							            (27330)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>			        402636
<SALES>								            125947
<TOTAL-REVENUES>					         	125947
<CGS>								            84313
<TOTAL-COSTS>						           	84313
<OTHER-EXPENSES>					         	3557
<LOSS-PROVISION>					         	0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>					         	24133
<INCOME-PRETAX>					         		13944
<INCOME-TAX>						            0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>			      			    13944
<DISCONTINUED>					          		0
<EXTRAORDINARY>			         				0
<CHANGES>							            0
<NET-INCOME>            					    13944
<EPS-PRIMARY>						           	0
<EPS-DILUTED>						           	0
        

</TABLE>
STATE v. DAVIS

No. COA06-1399.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed June 19, 2007

Certification Date July 9, 2007.

Appeal from Haywood (05CRS50607, 05CRS50610, 05CRS50611, 05CRS50613, 05CRS50616).

Case reported without published opinion. No error.