alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 244 (Thursday, December 20, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Page 72389]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 07-6121]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Testing of Methods for Measuring Hydrocarbon 
Dew Points in Natural Gas Streams

    Notice is hereby given that, on October 30, 2007, pursuant to 
Section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301, et seq. (``the Act''), SwRI: Testing of Methods 
for Measuring Hydrocarbon Dew Point in Natural Gas Streams has filed 
written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General and the 
Federal Trade Commission disclosing changes in its membership, nature 
and objective. The notifications were filed for the purpose of 
extending the Act's provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust 
plaintiffs to actual damages under specified circumstances. 
Specifically, Union Gas Limited, Chatham, Ontario, Canada has been 
added as a party to this venture. The changes in its nature and 
objectives are: The period of performance has been extended to December 
27, 2007; the hydrocarbon dew point analyzers will be tested to 
determine their ability to accurately measure hydrocarbon dew points 
when water vapor or methanol is present in the gas stream; and the 
recovery time of the instruments after being cooled to hydrocarbon dew 
point temperatures during operation will also be verified. These tests 
will provide new information on analyzer performance under adverse 
conditions.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and SwRI intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On March 20, 2007, SwRI: Testing of Methods for Measuring 
Hydrocarbon Dew Point in Natural Gas Streams filed its original 
notification pursuant to Section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of 
Justice published a notice in the Federal Register pursuant to Section 
6(b) of the Act on April 16, 2007 (72 FR 19023).

Patricia A. Brink,
Deputy Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 07-6121 Filed 12-19-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-11-M
Exhibit
      31.2





CERTIFICATION





I, Lior
Ostashinsky, certify that:





1. I have
reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q/A for the quarter ended June 30,
2009, of Ametrine Capital, Inc.;





2. Based on my
knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light
of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with
respect to the period covered by this report;





3. Based on my
knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition,
results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the
period presented in this report;





4. The
registrant’s other certifying officers and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as
defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant and
have:





a) Designed such
disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries,
is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the
period in which this report is being prepared;





b) [paragraph
omitted in accordance with Exchange Act Rule 13a-14(a)];





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





d) Disclosed in
this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial
reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the
registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has
materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the
registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





5. The
registrant's other certifying officers and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal controls over financial reporting, to the
registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors
(or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a) all
significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal controls over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and
report financial information; and





b) any fraud,
whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a
significant role in the registrant's internal control over financial
reporting.





Date: October 28,
2009


By: /s/Lior
      OstashinskyLior
      OstashinskyTreasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Be th Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein,

Justices

I, Larry S. Royster , Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

May 22, 2015

p0519 

# Order

Clerk May 22, 2015

149671

____________________________________ _____

In re FILIBECK Estate.

_________________________________________

HEIDI J. FILIBECK, Personal Representative of

the ESTATE of STEPHEN J. FILIBECK,

Plaintiff

- Appellee,

v SC: 149671

COA: 315107

Menominee PC: 2011

- 000065

- CZ

LAURA J. BEAL,

Defendant

- Appellant.

_________________________________________/

On order of the Chief Justice, the stipulation signed by counsel for the parties

agreeing to the dismissal of this appeal is considered, and the appeal is DISMISSED with

prejudice and without costs. The request for a ruling notwithstanding the stipulation to

dismiss is DENIED.
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS 

AUSTIN ;’ 

. . 

a-c.blAm 

~-oP(EAb . . ; 

Eonorable H. D. Stringer 

County Attorney 

Hall County 

mzphis, Texas 

Dear Sir: 

tsx .0olleo- 

"1 amof course familiar with 1prt. 7332, 

R. S. whioh says the.fee for the County Attorney in delinquent tax suits shall only be that 

prcsoribsd by da Article. However, Art. 

7345b being a later enaotment, and Sec. 13 

providing that in case or oonfliot the provisions of said Article should oontrol, it oo- 
Hocorable E. D. Stringer, Page 2 

OUrr0a to roe that I w0Uia be entitled to 

the fee set out in Seo. 0. 

"It would‘setxh that this oonstruotion 

xould be a logioal one because the fee prescribed by Art. 7332 is wholly inadequate." 

T?is department has heretofore ruled on a question 

very similar to that presented in your inquiry in opinion 

x0. C-1695. In that opinion it was held that Seotion 6 

of Article 7345b did not apply to county or district attornsys'rezarding fees in delinquent tax suits. The county or 

district attorney is entitled to only those fees as are 

pro*?iaed by Article 7332, Vernon's Annotated Civil StatUtsS. Ye are enolosing a copy 0r said opinion for your 

in;'omation. 

In view of the statutes mentioned 15 opinion MO. 

O-1595, you are respectfully advised that it is the opinion 

of this aepartnent that the county attorney is not entitled 

to tan per cent of delinquent tax collections as mentioned 

in pour inq*uiry, or any other compensation, but is entitled 

to only such fees as are provided by Article 7332, Vernon's 

annotated Civil Statutes. Our opinion No. O-836 is hereby 

3verri:led in so far as it ccnfliots with this opinion and 

Qinion No. O-159S. 

Trusting that the foregoing fully answers your 

knquiry, we are 

;SISTAKT 

I GZNERAL 

Yours very truly 

ATTOFUEY GK?ERAL OF TZXAS 

BY 

Araell W.lliam3 

Assistant 

COMMn-rPL
EXHIBIT 99.1




United States Securities and
Exchange Commission
450 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, D.C. 20549



April 29, 2002

Dear Sir/Madam:

This letter is being furnished to you pursuant to Temporary Note 3T to Article 3
of Regulation S-X in connection with the filing of the Form 10-K (the "Form
10-K) of RDO Equipment Co. (the "Company") for the fiscal year of the Company
ended January 31, 2002.

Item 8 of the Form 10-K includes the financial statements required by such Item
and the report of Arthur Andersen LLP ("Andersen") as the Company's independent
public accountant for the year ended January 31, 2002 with respect to such
financial statements.

The Form 10-K also contains a financial statement schedule, Schedule
II-Valuation and Qualifying Accounts for the fiscal years ended January 31,
2002, January 31, 2001, and January 31, 2000 and the report of Andersen with
respect to such schedule.

The Company has received the written representations of Andersen that the audits
that were the subject of the reports referred to above were subject to
Andersen's quality control system for the U.S. accounting and auditing practice
to provide reasonable assurance that the engagement was conducted in compliance
with professional standards and that there was appropriate continuity of
Andersen personnel working on the audits and availability of national office
consultation. Availability of personnel at foreign affiliates of Andersen was
not relevant to this audit.

Very truly yours,

RDO Equipment Co.


/s/ Steven B. Dewald
------------------------------------
By
Steven B. Dewald
Chief Financial Officer
EXHIBIT 31.1


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002





I, Richard Porterfield, certify that:





1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Precision Petroleum Corporation (the “Registrant”);





2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this quarterly report;





3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the Registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the Registrant and I have:





a)
designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the Registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;





b)
evaluated the effectiveness of the Registrant's disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within ninety (90) days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the "Evaluation Date"); and





c)
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;





5. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the Registrant's auditors and the audit committee of Registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function):





a)
all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the Registrant's ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the Registrant's auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and





b)
any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the Registrant's internal controls; and





6. The Registrant’s other certifying officer and I have indicated in this report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant
deficiencies and material weaknesses.





Date: August 12, 2009








By:           /s/  Richard Porterfield





Richard Porterfield


President, Chief Executive Officer and principal executive officer
|   | (1) | Such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and |
|--------|-----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011, fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|-----|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|                           |   |                                                 |   |
|--------------------------------|--------|------------------------------------------------------|--------|
| Date: May 13, 2011   | By:    | /s/ Berge Abajian                                    |   |
|                           |   | Berge Abajian                                        |   |
|                           |   | Principal Executive OfficerBergio International Inc. |   |
|                           |   |                                                 |   |
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 Annual Report on Form 10-KSB/A of World Heart Corporation (the "Corporation") for the year
ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), the undersigned, David Pellone, Vice President, Finance and Chief Financial
Officer of the Corporation, hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my
knowledge:



Dated: July 16, 2008

/s/*DAVID PELLONEDavid Pellone,
Vice President Finance and Chief Financial Officer
(Principal Financial and Accounting Officer)


---

---



QuickLinks
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

ARTURO VALENZUELA

, Appellant,

v.

STATE OF FLORIDA

, Appellee

.

No. 4D 21

- 2160

[ November 10, 2021 ]

Appeal of order denying rule 3.850 motion from the Circuit Court for

the Fifteenth Judicial Circuit, Palm Beach County ; Caroline C. Shepherd

, Judge; L.T. Case No. 502015CF005057AXXMB

.

Arturo Valenzuela, Bristol, pro se.

No appearance required for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed.

G ERBER

, K UNT Z and A RT AU

, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

ANTHONY P.X. BOTHWELL,

Plaintiff

- Appellant,

v.

JOHN O. BRENNAN, Director, Central Intelligence Agency, United States of

America ; CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY,

Defendants

- Appellees. No. 15

- 17323

D.C. No. 3:13

- cv

- 05439

- JSC

MEMORANDUM *

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California Jacqueline Scott Corley, Magistrate Judge, Presiding **

Submitted January 18, 2017 ** *

Before: TROTT, TASHIMA, and CALLAHAN, Circuit Judges.

Anthony P.X. Bothwell , an attorney, appeals pro se from the district court’s

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36

- 3.

** The parties consented to proceed before a magistrate judge. See

28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

*** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2). 

# FILED

JAN 31 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLER K

U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S2 15

- 17323

summary judgment in his action alleging violations of the Freedom of Information

Act (“FOIA”). We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo

,

Animal Legal Def. Fund v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin ., 836 F.3d 987 , 990 (9th Cir.

2016) , and we affirm

.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bothwell’s FOIA

requests for records pertaining to Jean Souetre because, e ven if the articles

Bothwell submitted were admissible, they did not establish a genuine dispute of

material fact as to whether the Central Intelligence Agency (“CIA”) waived the

application of FOIA Exemption 3. S ee Pickard v. Dep’t of J

ustice , 653 F.3d 782,

786 (9th Cir. 2011) (setting forth criteria for determining whether a fact is deemed

“officially acknowledged ” ). We reject as without merit Bothwell’s contention s

regarding redaction of records and the CIA’s alleged error in failing to consider the

public interest before invoking Exemption 3

.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Bothwell’s FOIA

requests f or records pertaining to David Morales because Bothwell did not raise a

genuine dispute of material fact as to whether the CIA’s search for responsive

records was inadequate

. See Lahr v. Nat’l Transp. Safety Bd ., 569 F.3d 964, 98 7

-

89 (9th Cir. 2009) ( concluding that agency’s declarations established that it3 15

- 17323

conducted searches reasonably calculated to uncover respo nsive records and the

agency’s failure to produce or identify a few isolated documents was insufficient to

show its searches were inadequate )

. Bothwell’s contentions regarding the CIA’s

prior disclosure of certain records and alleged error in failing to c onsider the public

interest are inapposite because the CIA did not invoke an exemption in response to

Bothwell’s FOIA request pertaining to Morales

.

AFFIRMED.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
          THIS  SCHEDULE   CONTAINS  SUMMARY   FINANCIAL   INFORMATION
          EXTRACTED FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF VOICENET, INC. AS
          OF 12/31/98  AND FOR THE YEAR THEN ENDED AND IS QUALIFIED IN
          ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1
<CURRENCY>                                     US$
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-1-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1998
<EXCHANGE-RATE>                                1
<CASH>                                            34,610
<SECURITIES>                                      12,246
<RECEIVABLES>                                     84,715
<ALLOWANCES>                                           0
<INVENTORY>                                            0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 136,371
<PP&E>                                                 0
<DEPRECIATION>                                         0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 4,449,825
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            217,249
<BONDS>                                                0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                  0
<PREFERRED>                                            0
<COMMON>                                          33,387
<OTHER-SE>                                     6,168,700
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   4,586,196
<SALES>                                                0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  45,500
<CGS>                                                  0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                      7,958
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,156,493
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                       0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                     0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (2,111,716)
<INCOME-TAX>                                       6,150
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                    0
<DISCONTINUED>                                         0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                        0
<CHANGES>                                              0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (2,117,866)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      (0.64)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      (0.64)
        


</TABLE>
Opinion filed December 1, 2011

In The

Eleventh Court of Appeals 

__________

No. 11-11-00321-CR

__________

IN RE BERNARD WILLIAMS

Original Mandamus Proceeding

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Relator, Bernard Williams, has filed a petition for writ of mandamus complaining of the 

Hon. Carter Schildknecht, judge of the 106th District Court of Dawson County, in connection 

with his request for a free appellate record. We deny the petition for writ of mandamus. 

Relator is seeking a free appellate record in Cause No. 11-10-00237-CR, styled Bernard 

Williams v. State of Texas. This court issued an opinion and judgment on May 27, 2011, in 

Cause No. 11-10-00237-CR, affirming relator’s conviction for possession of cocaine with the 

intent to deliver. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals subsequently refused relator’s petition 

for discretionary review in Cause No. 11-10-00237-CR on October 12, 2011. Thus, relator is 

seeking a free record in a criminal appellate proceeding that has been concluded.

An indigent criminal defendant is not entitled, either as a matter of equal protection or of 

due process, to a free record of prior proceedings for use in pursuing post-conviction relief. 

United States v. MacCollom, 426 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1976); In re Trevino, 79 S.W.3d 794, 796 
2

(Tex. App.—Corpus Christi 2002, orig. proceeding); Escobar v. State, 880 S.W.2d 782, 783 

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1993, per curiam order). To obtain a free record for use in a 

post-conviction proceeding, a relator must show that the subsequent proceeding is not frivolous 

by making a specific showing of the issues to be raised and a specific need for the record to 

demonstrate the right to post-conviction relief. See In re Coronado, 980 S.W.2d 691, 693 (Tex.

App.—San Antonio 1998, orig. proceeding); Eubanks v. Mullin, 909 S.W.2d 574, 576–77 (Tex.

App.—Fort Worth 1995, orig. proceeding); Escobar, 880 S.W.2d at 783.

Mandamus will issue only to correct a clear abuse of discretion or violation of a duty 

imposed by law when that abuse cannot be remedied by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 

833, 840 (Tex. 1992) (orig. proceeding). Relator has not provided this court with anything to 

show that a post-conviction proceeding would not be frivolous, and he has not shown a specific 

need for the record. Consequently, relator has failed to demonstrate that he is entitled to a free 

record from the prior proceeding. 

Accordingly, we deny relator’s petition for writ of mandamus.

PER CURIAM

December 1, 2011

Do not publish. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b).

Panel consists of: Wright, C.J.,

McCall, J., and Kalenak, J.