alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 181 (Tuesday, September 20, 2005)]
[Notices]
[Page 55106]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-18717]



[[Page 55106]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[Order No. 1411]


Grant of Authority for Subzone Status, Millipore Corporation 
(Polyvinylidene Fluoride Filtering Devices), Jaffrey, New Hampshire

    Pursuant to its authority under the Foreign-Trade Zones Act of 
June 18, 1934, as amended (19 U.S.C. 81a-81u), the Foreign-Trade 
Zones Board (the Board) adopts the following Order:
    Whereas, the Foreign-Trade Zones Act provides for ``. . . the 
establishment . . . of foreign-trade zones in ports of entry of the 
United States, to expedite and encourage foreign commerce, and for 
other purposes,'' and authorizes the Foreign-Trade Zones Board (the 
Board) to grant to qualified corporations the privilege of establishing 
foreign-trade zones in or adjacent to U.S. Customs ports of entry;
    Whereas, the Board's regulations (15 CFR Part 400) provide for the 
establishment of special-purpose subzones when existing zone facilities 
cannot serve the specific use involved, and when the activity results 
in a significant public benefit and is in the public interest;
    Whereas, the Pease Development Authority, grantee of Foreign-Trade 
Zone 81 (Portsmouth, New Hampshire), has made application for authority 
to establish special-purpose subzone status at the polyvinylidene 
fluoride (PVDF) filtering device manufacturing plant of Millipore 
Corporation, located in Jaffrey, New Hampshire (Docket 55-2004, filed 
11-30-2004);
    Whereas, notice inviting public comment was given in the Federal 
Register (69 FR 70996, 12-8-2004); and,
    Whereas, the Board adopts the findings and recommendations of the 
examiner's report, and finds that the requirements of the FTZ Act and 
Board's regulations are satisfied, and that approval of the application 
is in the public interest.
    Now, therefore, the Board hereby grants authority for subzone 
status for activity related to polyvinylidene fluoride (PVDF) filtering 
device manufacturing at the facilities of Millipore Corporation, 
located in Jaffrey, New Hampshire (Subzone 81D), as described in the 
application and Federal Register notice, and subject to the FTZ Act and 
the Board's regulations, including Section 400.28.
    Signed at Washington, DC, this 9th day of September 2005.

Joseph A. Spetrini,
Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Import Administration, 
Alternate Chairman, Foreign-Trade Zones Board.
    Attest:
Dennis Puccinelli,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 05-18717 Filed 9-19-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-S
Exhibit 10.2


 


July 21, 2014


 


Mr. James L. Dolan


Cablevision Systems Corporation


1111 Stewart Avenue


Bethpage, NY 11714







Dear Jim:


 



		Re:	Amendment to Time Sharing Agreement










Reference is made hereby to that certain Time Sharing Agreement (the “Agreement”) dated November 22, 2006 by and between you and CSC Holdings, LLC, as successor-in-interest to CSC Transport IV, Inc. (“CSC”), as amended to date.


 


You and CSC hereby agree that, effective as of June 1, 2014, Section 2 of the Agreement shall be amended to read in full as follows:


 


“2.       Payment for Use of Aircraft.  Lessee shall pay Lessor the following actual expenses of each flight conducted under this Agreement (the “Reimbursement Amount”) not to exceed the maximum amount legally payable for such flight under FAR Section 91.501(d)(1)-(10):








		(a)	fuel, oil, lubricants and other additives;











		(b)	travel expenses of crew, including food, lodging and ground transportation;











		(c)	hangar and tie-down costs away from the Aircraft's base of operation;











		(d)	additional insurance obtained for the specific flight at the request of Lessee;











		(e)	landing fees, airport taxes and similar assessments;











		(f)	customs, foreign permit and similar fees directly related to the flight;











		(g)	in-flight food and beverages;











		(h)	in-flight telecommunication expenses;











		(i)	passenger ground transportation; and











		(j)	flight planning and weather contract services.











Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event that any income is required to be imputed to you with respect to personal use of the Aircraft, calculated using the Standard Industry Fare Level method in accordance with Internal Revenue Service Regulation §1.61-21, the amount payable by you pursuant to this Section 2 shall be reduced by the amount necessary so that the total out of pocket cost to you, including taxes owed as a result of imputed income, is no greater than the Reimbursement Amount.”







Except as set forth herein, the Agreement shall continue in full force and effect in accordance with its terms.







	
 

	
Sincerely,


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
CSC HOLDINGS, LLC


	
 

	
 


	
 

	
/s/ Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Name: Jennifer Love


	
 

	
Title: SVP, CSO & Aviation










Accepted and agreed:







/s/ James L. Dolan


James L. Dolan


 


 


-2-
# C_2010328EN.01005702.xml

| 4.12.2010 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 328/57 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

4.12.2010

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 328/57

---

Order of the General Court of 5 October 2010 — Ryanair v Commission

(Case T-441/07) (1)

1

()

2010/C 328/89

Language of the case: English

The President of the Fifth Chamber has ordered that the case be removed from the register.

---

(1)  OJ C 37, 9.2.2008.

1

---
* 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.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 08-50287

Conference Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

FRANKLIN ALEXANDER RODRIGUEZ-DIAZ

Defendant-Appellant

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 2:07-CR-632-ALL

Before JOLLY, BARKSDALE, and HAYNES, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appealing the Judgment in a Criminal Case, Franklin Alexander

Rodriguez-Diaz raises arguments that are foreclosed by Almendarez-Torres v.

United States, 523 U.S. 224, 235 (1998), which held that 8 U.S.C. § 1326(b)(2) is

a penalty provision and not a separate criminal offense. United States v.PinedaArrellano, 492 F.3d 624, 625 (5th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 128 S. Ct. 872 (2008).

The Government’s motion for summary affirmance is GRANTED, and the

judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

F I L E D

October 8, 2008

Charles R. Fulbruge III

Clerk
**CERTIFICATION
      OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER**


**PURSUANT
      TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350**




In
      connection with this Quarterly Report of Sew Cal Logo, Inc. (the "Company")
      on
      Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2007, as filed with the
      Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Richard
      Songer, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of 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:




1.
      Such
      Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ending February 28, 2007 complies
      with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange
      Act
      of 1934; and




2.
      The
      information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period
      ending February 28,2007 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial
      condition and results of operations of Sew Cal Logo, Inc.




Date:
        April 12, 2007




**SEW
      CAL LOGO, INC.**


By:
            /s/ 
              Richard SongerChief
              Executive Officer
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-08-343-CV

IN RE GUY F. ZINSOU	RELATOR

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

	ORIGINAL PROCEEDING

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	The court has considered relator’s petition for writ of mandamus and is of the opinion that relief should be denied.  Accordingly, relator’s petition for writ of mandamus is denied.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL:  CAYCE, C.J.; DAUPHINOT and GARDNER, JJ.

DELIVERED:  August 29, 2008
Exhibit 12.1

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
Earnings to Fixed Charges
<S>                                     <C>       <C>   <C>


                                       2001     2002     2003
Earnings:
Income before taxes                   (1361)   (3990)    25534
Interest                              54355    49254     45413
Interest portion of rental expense     2764     3254      3739
                                      -----    -----     -----
                                      55758    48518     74686

Fixed Charges:
Interest                              54355    49254     45413
Interest capitalized                   (589)    (844)     (860)
Interest portion of rental expense     2764     3254      3739
                                      -----    -----     -----
                                      56530    51664     48292

Ratio                               .986344  .939106  1.546554

Shortfall (overage)                     772     3146    (26394)
</TABLE>
In the MATTER OF: S.D.B. and W.A.B.

No. COA16-1265

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Filed: July 5, 2017

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1996
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1996
<CASH>                                             234
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,611
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 5,458
<PP&E>                                         208,190
<DEPRECIATION>                                  11,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 203,502
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            7,542
<BONDS>                                         42,800
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           158
<OTHER-SE>                                     141,655
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   203,502
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                26,611
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                10,255
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               2,665
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 13,002
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             13,002
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    13,002
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        

</TABLE>
NORTH CAROLINA FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. Lillian Dianne HULL and Annitta B. Crook

No. 45A17

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

August 17, 2017

Harold C. Spears, Attorney at Law, Christopher P. Raab, Attorney at Law, Charlotte, for NC Farm Bureau Mutual Insurance Company.

*734Michael Doran, Attorney at Law, Salisbury, for Hull, Lillian Dianne, et al.

***AMENDED ORDER***

Upon consideration of the petition for discretionary review, filed by Plaintiff on the 3rd of February 2017 in this matter pursuant to G.S. 7A-31 and the Appellate Rule 16(b) as to issues in addition to those presented as the basis for the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals, the following order was entered and is hereby certified to the North Carolina Court of Appeals: the petition for discretionary review as to additional issues is

"Denied by order of the Court in conference, this the 17th of August 2017."

Accordingly, only those issues which are the basis of the dissenting opinion in the Court of Appeals shall be presented to this Court in briefs. The Plaintiff's new brief so limited in scope shall be filed with this Court not more than 30 days from the date of certification of this order.
STATE of North Carolina v. Robert HOLLOMAN.

No. COA15-1261.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

July 5, 2016.

**Case Reported Without Published Opinion**

No Plain Error.
. ’

OFFICE OF THE AlTORNEYGENERAL OF TEXAS AUSTlN

**HOnor~bl*** **Rolner @arrimll,**  **Jr. Dircator**  Beprrtmento? Pwbllo Safety **Aus tin**  **, Texas**  **-!?i**

1940, you ark the ion of ubethbr ?ihe Aote or, the authoriret

on HResulultted to Ii8 aA& dleouaaedIn our opiaian

f Ootobar 9, 1939. th, for your lnplalon WC hrld follorr: or tom your eixth querCloa,you are the balanoowhioh may r”p*c la the and Qhaatfeur8r Licensekd, under Publid 9atsty

ocae is not the ohmaoter of npcoi.al tuna ~vtilabke for the UPO oi the Deportmentof Publlo Safety generally,by gnd with the approved of the Lialtaatlun

of P~ytwnta?S&&, but the rider:

Hor:.Trable Holaar Garrison,Jr., Page 2 quoted above from SenateBill 427 requirer " th& I)uoh

exoese or surplus in the fund be devbted to a partloularuse by the ComptrOller, that is, the exoesa at the end of the flroal blennlum in this epealal fund is to be pald into the Qeneral Fund for the purpole of relmburslngthat fund for the item of~~:ralariee

and other expenaeearywoprlated to the Depertmentof Publio Safety out of the Generel Fund for the flroal blennlum ending Augtmt 31, 1941.* Your6 very truly ATTORNEY GENE~:AL OF TEXhB 

### BY A 'd Falmhlld

. Aesi at&t

Opinion Committee By B.W.B., Chairman
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

No. 08-1712

In Re: NORMAN TYRONE DAIS, 

 Petitioner. 

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus. 

(4:03-cr-00386-TLW) 

Submitted: October 21, 2008 Decided: October 23, 2008

Before MICHAEL, TRAXLER, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges. 

Petition denied by unpublished per curiam opinion. 

Norman Tyrone Dais, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. 
2 

PER CURIAM: 

Norman Tyrone Dais petitions for a writ of mandamus 

seeking an order compelling the district court to forestall 

ruling on his pending motion filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 

(2000). We conclude that Dais is not entitled to mandamus 

relief. 

Mandamus relief is available only when the petitioner 

has a clear right to the relief sought. In re First Fed. Sav. & 

Loan Ass’n, 860 F.2d 135, 138 (4th Cir. 1988). Further, 

mandamus is a drastic remedy and should only be used in 

extraordinary circumstances. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court, 

426 U.S. 394, 402 (1976); In re Beard, 811 F.2d 818, 826 (4th 

Cir. 1987). 

The relief sought by Dais is not available by way of 

mandamus. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma 

pauperis and deny the petition for writ of mandamus. We 

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the 

court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

PETITION DENIED
STATE v. Harry Sharod JAMES

514PA11-2

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

March 23, 2017

David W. Andrews, Assistant Appellate Defender, for James, Harry Sharod.

Sandra Wallace-Smith, Special Deputy Attorney General, R. Andrew Murray, District Attorney, for State of N.C.

The following order has been entered on the Motion for Extension of Time to File Brief filed on the 23rd of March 2017 by Defendant:

"Motion Allowed by order of the Court in conference, this the 23rd of March 2017."

Defendant shall have up to and including the 17th day of May 2017 to file and serve his/her brief with this Court.
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


                        Independent Auditors' Consent


The Board of Directors
Dime Bancorp. Inc.:


We consent to incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements(Nos.
33-88552, 33-88554, 33-88556, 33-88558, 33-88560, 33-88566, 333-04477,
333-26609, 333-26777, 333-35565, 333-48127, 333-51941, 333-54306, 333-64509,
333-75103, 333-77317, 333-88071 and 333-89901) on Form S-8 of Dime Bancorp,
Inc. of our report dated January 19, 2001 relating to the consolidated
statements of financial condition of Dime Bancorp, Inc. and subsidiaries as of
December 31, 2000 and 1999, and the related consolidated statements of income,
changes in stockholders' equity, cash flows and comprehensive income for each
of the years in the three-year period ended December 31, 2000, which report
appears in the December 31, 2000 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Dime Bancorp,
Inc.



/s/ KPMG LLP


New York, New York
April 2, 2001
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

MIDDLE DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Petitioner

v.

GERALD NEAL,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 378 MAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 1st day of November, 2023

, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal

is DENIED

.
United States Department of Labor 

Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

__________________________________________ 

M.R., Appellant 

and 

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, U.S. 

CENSUS BUREAU, Philadelphia, PA, Employer 

__________________________________________ 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Docket No. 15-583 

Issued: December 9, 2015 

Appearances: Case Submitted on the Record

Thomas R. Uliase, Esq., for the appellant 

Office of Solicitor, for the Director 

ORDER VACATING PRIOR BOARD DECISION 

Before: 

PATRICIA H. FITZGERALD, Deputy Chief Judge 

ALEC J. KOROMILAS, Alternate Judge 

JAMES A. HAYNES, Alternate Judge 

 On August 26, 2015 the Board issued a decision and order in the above-entitled case. By 

that decision and order, the Board found in the “CONCLUSION” portion that appellant had not 

established that she sustained bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome causally related to her March 14, 

2002 employment injury and also had not established that she was disabled from March 20 to 

July 15, 2003 due to her accepted work injury. However, in the “ORDER” portion the Board 

stated in pertinent part, “the November 5, 2014 decision of the Office of Workers’ Compensation 

Programs [OWCP] is set aside and the case is affirmed.” The Board notes that the 

aforementioned language was inadvertently included in the August 26, 2015 decision and order 

as the Board intended to affirm OWCP’s November 5, 2014 decision in its entirety. 

 The Board has duly considered the matter and concludes that, since the Board’s 

conclusion reflected its intention to affirm OWCP’s November 5, 2014 decision in its entirety, 

but the order reflected that OWCP’s decision was “set aside and the case is affirmed,” the 

August 26, 2015 decision order was issued in error. As such, the decision and order was void 

ab initio, that is, void from its inception and of no force and effect.1 Consequently, the Board 

 1 Cf. Donald E. Buckles, 43 ECAB 707 (1992), in which the Board found that its prior order remanding case was 

void ab initio where the Board had no authority, due to lack of jurisdiction, to issue the order at the time of issuance. 

In the instant case, the Board issued the August 26, 2015 decision and order with a conflicting order that was not 

indicative of the Board’s conclusion and supporting analysis. 
2

will reissue the decision and order to reflect the proper disposition of the case, which is to affirm 

OWCP’s November 5, 2014 decision in its entirety. Accordingly, 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the August 26, 2015 decision and order of the 

Board is set aside.2

 

Issued: December 9, 2015 

Washington, DC 

 

 Patricia H. Fitzgerald, Deputy Chief Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 

 Alec J. Koromilas, Alternate Judge 

 Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board 

 2

 James A. Haynes, Alternate Judge, participated in the original decision but was no longer a member of the 

Board effective November 16, 2015 and did not participate in the preparation of this order
1

The Honorable James M. Moody, United States District Judge for the Eastern

District of Arkansas.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 07-1847

___________

Jimmy Shane Cantrell, *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the Eastern

* District of Arkansas.

Larry Norris, *

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Appellee. *

___________

Submitted: October 7, 2008

Filed: October 10, 2008

___________

Before WOLLMAN, SMITH, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges.

___________

PER CURIAM.

In this interlocutory appeal, Arkansas state prisoner Jimmy Cantrell challenges

the district court’s 1

denial of his motion for partial summary judgment and his request

for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction in his 28 U.S.C.

§ 2254 action.

We lack jurisdiction to review the denial of a TRO, see Hamm v. Groose, 15

F.3d 110, 112-13 (8th Cir. 1994), or to review the denial of summary judgment, see
-2-

Krein v. Norris, 250 F.3d 1184, 1187 (8th Cir. 2001). With respect to the denial of

a preliminary injunction, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion

or otherwise err by finding that it had no authority to order state court clerks to adhere

to the federal prison-mailbox rule. See Safety-Kleen Sys., Inc. v. Hennkens, 301 F.3d

931, 935 (8th Cir. 2002) (standard of review); Winkels v. George A. Hormel & Co.,

874 F.2d 567, 568 (8th Cir. 1989) (general rule is that state procedural rules govern

cases originating in state court). As to Cantrell’s desire for an evidentiary hearing

(with appointed counsel) on his habeas claims, we note that the district court will

determine whether such a hearing is warranted. See Rule 8(a) & (c), Rules Governing

Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts.

Accordingly, we affirm the denial of a preliminary injunction. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________
Exhibit 32.1

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 on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2022 (the “Report”) of Hercules Capital, Inc. (the “Registrant”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Scott Bluestein, the Chief Executive Officer of the Registrant, certify, to the best of my knowledge, that:

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

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

 

|                   |        |                                         |
|-------------------|--------|-----------------------------------------|
| Date: May 5, 2022 | By:    | /S/ SCOTT BLUESTEIN

              |
|              |   | Scott Bluestein                         |
|              |   | President, Chief Executive Officer, and |
|              |   | Chief Investment Officer

         |

 

 

----