alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 105 (Wednesday, June 2, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 30772]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-13105]


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

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Forest Service


Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee

AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Southern New Mexico Resource Advisory Committee will meet 
in Socorro, New Mexico. The committee is meeting as authorized under 
the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 
110-343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The 
purpose of the meeting is to develop operating protocols.

DATES: The meeting will be held June 22, 2010, 10 a.m.

ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at 901 Highway 85, Socorro Bureau 
of Land Management field office. Written comments should be sent to Mr. 
Al Koss, HC 68, Box 50, Mimbres, NM 88049-9301. Comments may also be 
sent via e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6d6067637f7f4c6a7f226a696822797f"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b8d9d4d3d7cbcbf8decb96dedddc96cdcb">[email protected]</span></a>, or via facsimile to 575-520-2551.
    All comments, including names and addresses when provided, are 
placed in the record and are available for public inspection and 
copying. The public may inspect comments received at the Wilderness 
Ranger District, HC 68, Box 50, Mimbres, NM 88049-9301. Visitors are 
encouraged to call ahead to 575-536-2250 to facilitate entry into the 
building.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Al Koss, Designated Federal 
Official, 575-536-2250 or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c7a6abaca8b4b487a1b4e9a1a2a3e9b2b4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="aacbc6c1c5d9d9eaccd984cccfce84dfd9">[email protected]</span></a>.
    Individuals who use telecommunication devices for the deaf (TDD) 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339 
between 8 a.m. and 8 p.m., Eastern Standard Time, Monday through 
Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The meeting is open to the public. The 
following business will be conducted: (1) Introductions of all 
committee members, replacement members, and Forest Service personnel; 
(2) selection of a chairperson by the committee members; (3) receive 
materials explaining the process for considering and recommending Title 
II projects; and (4) public Comment. Persons who wish to bring related 
matters to the attention of the Committee may file written statements 
with the Committee staff before or after the meeting. Public input 
sessions will be provided and individuals who made written requests by 
June 15 will have the opportunity to address the Committee at those 
sessions.

    Dated: May 26, 2010.
Alan E. Koss,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 2010-13105 Filed 6-1-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### W. J. KILLOUGH v. FRANK WILLIAMS and BERNICE LOCKAMY.

(Filed 19 April, 1944.)

Negligence § 19a—

In an action to recover damages for injuries to plaintiff caused by-alleged negligence of defendant, where plaintiff’s evidence tended to show that he was driving his automobile just after dark, on a paved highway, following about forty feet in the rear of defendants’ truck, at about 35-miles per hour, when defendant pulled to the right, off the shoulder of the road, apparently as if to stop, then suddenly, without signal or warning, drove the truck to the left across the road immediately in front of plaintiff’s car, leaving neither time nor space to avoid the collision from which the damage resulted, motion for judgment as of nonsuit was erroneously granted, as contributory negligence on the part of plaintiff does not conclusively appear from his evidence.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Stevens, J.,*at February Term, 1944, of Wake.

Reversed.

Action for damages for personal injury alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendants in tbe operation of a motor truck. At tbe conclusion of tbe plaintiff’s evidence motion for judgment of nonsuit was allowed, and plaintiff appealed.

*Thomas W. Ruffin for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Smith, Leach ■& Anderson and P. D. Herring for defendants,*appellees-

DeviN, J".

Tbe plaintiff’s appeal brings up for review tbe ruling of' tbe trial court that tbe evidence offered was insufficient to warrant submission of tbe ease to tbe jury. In order to determine tbe correctness of tbis ruling tbe evidence must be considered in tbe light most favorable for tbe plaintiff.

*255From tbe evidence introduced on tbe trial it was made to appear tbat on tbe occasion alleged, just after dark, plaintiff was driving bis automobile on a paved highway following defendants’ truck. Defendants’ truck pulled to tbe right, off on the shoulder of the road, apparently as if about to stop, the plaintiff being about 40 feet to the rear and driving about 35 miles per hour. Then suddenly, without signal or warning, defendants’ truck was driven to the left across the highway immediately in front of plaintiff’s automobile, leaving him neither time nor space within which to avoid a collision. Plaintiff sustained substantial injury.

Obviously there was evidence of negligence on the part of defendants, but it is insisted by appellees that according to pláintiff’s own testimony he was guilty of contributory negligence in following too closely in the rear of the truck. G. S., 20-152; *Allen v. Boltling Co.,*223 N. C., 118. However, we do not think contributory negligence on the part of the plaintiff conclusively appears from his evidence. Hence he was entitled to have his case submitted to the jury. *Hampton v. Hawkins,*219 N. C., 205, 13 S. E. (2d), 227; *Smith v. Coach Co.,*214 N. C., 314, 199 S. E., 90; *Cole v. Koonce,*214 N. C., 188, 198 S. E., 637; *Hayes v. Tel. Co.,*211 N. C., 192, 189 S. E., 499; *Murphy v. Coach Co.,*200 N. C., 92, 156 S. E., 550.

The judgment of nonsuit was improvidently entered and must be

Reversed.
Exhibit 32.2

            CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE & FINANCIAL OFFICER
                       PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350


In connection with the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell
International  Corporation  for the quarter  ended March 31, 2006,  I, Kristi J.
Kampmann, Chief Financial Officer of Intercell International Corporation, hereby
certify  pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to my knowledge, that:

        a.     such Quarterly  Report on Form 10-QSB of Intercell  International
               Corporation for the quarter ended March 31, 2006,  fully complies
               with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
               Exchange Act of 1934; and

        b.     the information contained in such Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB
               of  Intercell  International  Corporation  for the quarter  ended
               March 31, 2006, fairly presents,  in all material  respects,  the
               financial  condition  and  results  of  operations  of  Intercell
               International Corporation.


                                             /s/ Kristi J. Kampmann
                                             --------------------------------
                                             Kristi J. Kampmann,
                                                Chief Financial Officer


Date:      May 11, 2006



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided  to  Intercell  International  Corporation  and  will  be  retained  by
Intercell International Corporation and furnished to the Securities and Exchange
Commission or its staff upon request.
### T E X A S C O U R T O F A P P E A L S , T H I R D D I S T R I C T , A T A U S T I N

NO. 03-15-00460- CV

Ke nneth Bryson and S ue Bryson, App ellants

v. Thomas P . Allison , Appellee

F ROM TH E CO UNTY COURT O F MI LAM CO UNTY NO. CV0930 3, H ONO RAB LE DAVID B ARKM EY ER, JUDGE P RESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N
On S eptember 28, 2015, this Court sent noti ce t o appellants that the clerk’s record and reporter ’s record were due in this C o u rt on September 14, 2015, and that notice was rec eived from the district cler

k that no pay

ment had been rec eived or arr ang ements made for pay ment for the cler k’s re cord. This Court reque sted that appellants make arr ang ements for the re cord a

nd submit
a status repor

t. Appellants wer e notified that their appe al wo u l d b e dismiss ed for want of prosec ution if they did respond to this Court by October 8, 2015. To date, ap p el l ants have not responde d to the Court’s notice. Acc ording ly , we dismiss the appea l f or want of prosec ution. See Tex. R. App. P . 42.3(b), ( c).__________________________________________ Melissa Goodwin, Jus tice Be fore J ustices Pury ear , Goodwin, and B ourland Dismissed for Want of Prosecution Filed: Oc tober 15, 2015

2
#### JOHN W. MOORE v. BRIGHT W. CROSSWELL.

(Filed 4 June, 1954.)

1. Appeal and Error § 6c (5) —

While exceptions to the charge may be noted after trial, such exceptions should be included in appellant’s statement of case on appeal as served on appellee.

*4742. Appeal and Error § 23—

The function of the assignment of errors is to group and bring forward such of the exceptions previously noted as the appellant desires to preserve and present to the Court, and may be prepared after service of case on appeal.

3. Appeal and Error § 24—

An assignment of error not supported by an exception duly taken will be disregarded.

4. Appeal and Error § 6c (2) —

A sole exception to the judgment presents only the face of the record proper for review, and when no error appears thereon, the appeal must fail.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Grady, Emergency Judge,*and a jury, at January Civil Term, 1954, of DubhaM.

Civil action to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to bave been caused by the negligence of the defendant, tried below on issues of negligence and contributory negligence. Both issues were answered in the affirmative.

From judgment on the verdict decreeing that the plaintiff recover nothing, he appealed.

*G. Horton Poe, Jr., for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Reade, Fuller, Newsom ■& Graham for defendant, appellee.*

JoiiNsoN, J.

This appeal is predicated upon assignments of error, both of omission and commission, in the charge. Yet, the assignments urged are not supported by exceptions previously noted as required by our rules. See Rules 19 (3) and 21, Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court, 221 N.C. 554. While exceptions to the charge may be noted after trial, when the statement of case on appeal is prepared, even so, such exceptions should be included in appellant’s statement of case on appeal as served on the appellee, in order that the latter may be fully apprised at that juncture of the theory of the appeal. The assignment of errors, not necessarily being a part of the statement of case on appeal, may be prepared later. The function of the assignment of errors is to group and bring forward such of the exceptions previously noted in the case on appeal as the appellant desires to preserve and present to the Court. 3 Am. Jur., Appeal and Error, Sections 694 and 695. Therefore, an assignment of error not supported by an exception will be disregarded. *Worley v. Logging Co.,*157 N.C. 490, 73 S.E. 107. It is so ordered here.

The only exception appearing in the record is to the signing and entering of the judgment from which the appeal is taken. This presents only the face of the record proper for inspection and review, and when no *475error appears thereon, the appeal must fail. *Query v. Insurance Co.,*218 N.C. 386, 11 S.E. 2d 139; *Smith v. Smith,*226 N.C. 506, 39 S.E. 2d 391; *Bourne v. Edwards,*238 N.C. 261, 77 S.E. 2d 616; *Donnell v. Cox, ante,*259, 81 S.E. 2d 664. Here the verdict supports the judgment and no error appears on the face of the record.

No error.
| 名称Name                                                          | 材料说明Material Description                                                                                                        | 生产厂家Manufacturer |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|----------------------------------------------|
| 机组框架Unit Framework                                | 铝合金型材Aluminum Alloy Sections                                                                                             | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |
| 通用三通角件Universal Tee Corner fittings | 塑料注塑件Plastic Injection Parts                                                                                             | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |
| 20mm围护壁板20mm Enclosure Wall Panel                 | 聚氨脂高压发泡隔热复合板Polyurethane High-pressure Foam Insulating Composite Board  | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |
| 钣金件Sheet Metal Component                                 | 镀锌钢板或钢板喷塑Galvanized Steel Sheet or Steel Sheet Spray Plastics                                | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |
| 风机Fan                                                           | 外转子离心通风机External-rotor Centrifugal Fan                                                              | 金永利Jinyongli            |
| 过滤器(F7)Filter (F7)                         | 中效铝合金框架无纺布袋式Medium Efficiency Aluminum Alloy Frame Non-woven Bag Filter | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |
| 吊架Hanger                                                   | 槽钢喷漆Channel Steel Painting                                                                                                      | 苏州莱德Suzhou Laide |

----
Form TRANSC

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT

Northern District of California

In re Debtor(s):

PG&E Corporation

Case No.: 19−30088 DM 11

Chapter: 11

NOTICE OF FILING OF TRANSCRIPT

AND DEADLINES RELATED TO RESTRICTION AND REDACTION

A transcript of the proceeding held on July 9, 2019 was filed on July 10, 2019. The following deadlines apply:

The parties have until Wednesday, July 17, 2019 to file with the court a Notice of Intent to Request Redaction of this

transcript. The deadline for filing a request for redaction is Wednesday, July 31, 2019.

If a request for redaction is filed, the redacted transcript is due Monday, August 12, 2019.

If no such notice is filed, the transcript may be made available for remote electronic access upon expiration of the

restriction period, which is Tuesday, October 8, 2019, unless extended by court order.

To review the transcript for redaction purposes, you may purchase a copy from the transcriber,

Jason Gottlieb

Attn: Jason Gottlieb, Dir. of Tran. Ops.

7227 N 16th St. #207

Phoenix, AZ 85020

or you may view the document at the clerk's office public terminal.

Dated: 7/15/19 For the Court:

Edward J. Emmons

Clerk of Court

United States Bankruptcy Court

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 2921-1 Filed: 07/10/19 Entered: 07/10/19 14:49:14 Page 1

of 1
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-2000
<CASH>                                      13,054,019
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                         103,022
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                             5,700,000
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                     0
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                 52,192,858
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                      23,316,587
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                        23,557,063
<LOANS>                                    193,815,369
<ALLOWANCE>                                  2,180,717
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             303,226,581
<DEPOSITS>                                 274,543,111
<SHORT-TERM>                                 1,290,455
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                          1,279,956
<LONG-TERM>                                  7,478,317
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                  1,861,335
<COMMON>                                       251,517
<OTHER-SE>                                  16,521,890
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>             303,226,581
<INTEREST-LOAN>                             14,091,971
<INTEREST-INVEST>                            3,537,627
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                86,081
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                            17,715,679
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                           6,421,514
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           6,901,195
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                       10,814,484
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                  595,080
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                              16,126
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                             10,682,132
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,877,034
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                   2,135,358
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 2,135,358
<EPS-BASIC>                                      .77
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .70
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    5.24
<LOANS-NON>                                    157,106
<LOANS-PAST>                                   606,671
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                             1,967,327
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                (481,478)
<RECOVERIES>                                    99,788
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                            2,180,717
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                            61,178
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                      2,119,539


</TABLE>
EXHIBIT B 8

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 1662-9 Filed: 04/24/19 Entered: 04/24/19 17:03:55 Page 1

of 30
#### Mary Ann Durland v. Jesse Durland, as Executor, etc.

— Ordered that the order of this General Term, dated December 103 1894, be amended by inserting therein after the word “ reversed ” the words “ on both questions of law and questions of fact.”
**Exhibit 32.2**

**CertificationPursuant To Section 906 Of The Sarbanes-Oxley Act Of 2002(Chapter 63, Title 18 U.S.C. Section  1350(A) And (B))**

Pursuantto Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (Chapter 63, Title 18U.S.C. Section 1350(a) and (b)), the undersigned hereby certifies inhis capacity as an officer of Metaldyne Corporation (the “Company”) that theQuarterly Report of the Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended July 2,2006 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that the information containedin such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financialcondition and results of operations of the Company at the end of and for theperiods covered by such Report.
| Date: August 8, 2006 | /s/ JEFFREY M.  STAFEIL                                 |
|---------------------------|---------------------------------------------------------|
|                      | Jeffrey M. Stafeil                                      |
| * *                  | *Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer* |
| * *                  | *(Chief Accounting Officer and Authorized  Signatory)*  |

 

----
Exhibit A

Chapter 11 Plan Timeline

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3515-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 15:18:52 Page 1

of 3
WEIL:\97149332\5\67615.0014

In re PG&E Corporation et. al, Case No. 19-30088 (DM) (jointly administered) 

Illustrative Chapter 11 Plan Solicitation and Confirmation Timeline1

Schedule Proposed Date2

Hearing on Estimation Procedures Motion August 14, 2019 

Debtors to File Chapter 11 Plan and Disclosure Statement September 9, 2019 

Hearing Regarding Tubbs Causation October 7, 2019 to 

October 28, 2019 

Hearing Regarding Inverse Condemnation October 9, 2019 

Chapter 11 Bar Date October 21, 2019, 

at 5:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline to File Objections to Disclosure Statement 

(35 days after filing of Disclosure Statement) 

October 14, 2019 

 at 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline for Debtors’ to File Reply in Support of Disclosure Statement 

(2 weeks after objections to Disclosure Statement are due) 

October 28, 2019 

 at 4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Disclosure Statement Approval Hearing November 6, 2019 

at 10:00 a.m. (PT) 

Entry of Order Approving Disclosure Statement November 8, 2019 

Mailing of Plan Solicitation Packages November 6, 2019 to 

December 20, 2019 

Hearings Regarding Final Estimation December 16, 2019 to 

January 17, 2020 

Entry of Order Regarding Final Estimation /Resolution of Estimation Hearings January 17, 2020 

Chapter 11 Plan Voting Deadline 

(approximately 2 months from completion of solicitation mailing) 

February 21, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

                                                            

1 The Debtors will work with the CPUC and its restructuring advisors to coordinate the CPUC approval 

process for the Debtors’ chapter 11 plan.

2

 All times prevailing Pacific Time. 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3515-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 15:18:52 Page 2

of 3
2

WEIL:\97149332\5\67615.0014

Schedule Proposed Date2

Deadline to File Objections to Chapter 11 Plan Confirmation February 21, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Deadline to File Certification Announcing Chapter 11 Voting and Tabulation 

Results 

(2 weeks after objections are due) 

March 6, 2020 

Deadline to File Debtors’ Reply Brief In Support of Chapter 11 Plan 

Confirmation 

(2 weeks after objections are due) 

March 6, 2020 at 

4:00 p.m. (PT) 

Confirmation Hearing Commences March 17, 2020 at 

10:00 a.m. (PT) 

Confirmation Order Entered April 15, 2020 

Chapter 11 Plan Effective Date and Emergence May 1, 2020 

Case: 19-30088 Doc# 3515-1 Filed: 08/12/19 Entered: 08/12/19 15:18:52 Page 3

of 3