alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 241 (Friday, December 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64456-64457]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30584]



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


NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

NUREG: Issuance, Availability

    The Nuclear Regulatory Commission has issued two final reports on 
estimating pressurized water reactor (PWR) decommissioning costs. They 
are NUREG/CR-5884, ``Revised Analyses of the Decommissioning for the 
Reference Pressurized Water Reactor Power Station,'' and NUREG/CR-6054, 
``Estimating Pressurized Water Reactor Decommissioning Costs.'' The 
reports discuss and provide methods for estimating decommissioning 
costs for PWRs. They also provide background information to support 
rulemaking activities to modify funding assurance requirements for 
power reactor licensees. Companion reports addressing boiling water 
reactor decommissioning costs will be published in the near future.
    Copies of NUREG/CR-5884 and NUREG/CR-6054 may be purchased from the 
Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, P. O. Box 
37082, Washington, DC 20013-7082. Copies are also available from the 
National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, 
Springfield, 

[[Page 64457]]
Virginia 22161. Copies are available for inspection and copying for a 
fee in the NRC Public Document Room, 2120 L Street, NW. (Lower Level), 
Washington, DC.
    For further information contact George J. Mencinsky, Division of 
Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research, Mail 
Stop T-9 F31, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555, 
telephone (301) 415-6206.

    Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 7th day of December, 1995. 
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Bill M. Morris,
Director, Division of Regulatory Applications, Office of Nuclear 
Regulatory Research.
[FR Doc. 95-30584 Filed 12-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64039-64040]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30320]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT96-37-000]


Boundary Gas, Inc.; Notice of Refund Report

December 7, 1995.
    Take notice that on November 29, 1995, Boundary Gas, Inc. 
(Boundary) submitted a refund report reflecting the flowthrough of the 
Gas Research Institute (``GRI'') refund received by Boundary on 
September 29, 1995. Boundary states, that pursuant to the 1993 GRI 
settlement, and in compliance with the Commission order approving such 
settlement, it has credited such refund proportionally to its firm 
customers on non-discounted service based on the GRI surcharges those 
customers paid during the calendar year 1994.
    Boundary states that each customer's credit was reflected on its 
invoice for October, 1995 services issued on or about November 15, 
1995.
    Boundary states that a copy of this filing is being mailed to each 
of Boundary's affected customers and the state commissions of New York, 
Connecticut, New Jersey, Massachusetts, New Hampshire and Rhode Island.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest the subject filing 
should file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Pursuant to 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations, all such motions or 
protests must be filed not 

[[Page 64040]]
later than 12 days after the date of the filing noted above. Protests 
will be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to 
the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion 
to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30320 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
```
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 235 (Thursday, December 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29839]

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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Minerals Management Service

Outer Continental Shelf, Western Gulf of Mexico, Oil and Gas 
Lease Sale 155--Extension

AGENCY: Minerals Management Service, Interior.

ACTION: Notice to extend post-sale evaluation period for Western Gulf 
of Mexico Lease Sale 155.

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

SUMMARY: The furlough of workers of the Minerals Management Service 
(MMS) delayed the evaluation of bids from Lease Sale 155 in the Western 
Gulf of Mexico. This notice extends by 9 days the post-sale evaluation 
period for Western Gulf of Mexico Lease Sale 155. The extra time will 
allow MMS personnel to properly evaluate bids.

DATES: The post-sale evaluation period ends on December 20, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John Mirabella or Kumkum Ray, Engineering and Standards Branch, 
telephone (703) 787-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 11, 1995, MMS published a lease 
sale notice in the Federal Register (60 FR 41105) announcing a lease 
sale in the Western Gulf of Mexico with bid openings on September 13, 
1995. On November 14, 1995, during the evaluation of the bids received 
from the lease sale, MMS experienced a 6-day shutdown of all but 
essential work of the agency. This shutdown broke the continuity of the 
work of evaluating bids and delayed the evaluation process. MMS is 
extending the evaluation period to allow personnel to properly evaluate 
the bids received. MMS will complete the evaluation of all bids 
received for this sale by December 20, 1995.

    Dated: December 4, 1995.
Thomas M. Gernhofer,
Associate Director for Offshore Minerals Management.
[FR Doc. 95-29839 Filed 12-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-MR-M
```
Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4281    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:17:04    Page 1 of2

Case: 19-30088    Doc# 4281    Filed: 10/18/19    Entered: 10/18/19 12:17:04    Page 2 of2
#### The People of the State of New York ex rel. Charles Smith, Appellant, v Robert Morgenthau, as District Attorney of New York County, et al., Respondents.

Submitted February 5, 1996;

decided April 4, 1996

Motion for leave to appeal dismissed upon the ground that the Court of Appeals does not have jurisdiction to entertain the motion (NY Const, art VI, § 3 [b]; CPLR 5602 [a]). Motion for poor person relief dismissed as academic.
Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc.-10k




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 Annual Report of Advanced BioMedical Technologies Inc. (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the period ended October 31, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "report"), I, Wang Hui, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and




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






Dated this 15th day of February , 2011./s/ Wang HuiWang Hui, Director and Chief Executive Officer
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 Annual Report of Minatura Gold (the “Company”) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2009, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Paul R. Dias, Chief Executive Officer and Principal Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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; and





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











/S/ Paul R. DiasPaul R. DiasChief Executive Officer andPrincipal Executive OfficerApril 9, 2010
#### E. McL. WILSON and Wife, ETHEL B. WILSON, v. O. O. ALLSBROOK, Trustee, and E. L. WHITE.

(Filed 9 November, 1932.)

Reference B b: Mortgages H b — Mortgagor held entitled to finding as to whether note was paid or was to be paid out of rents.

Where the plaintiff! brings suit to restrain the foreclosure of a mortgage on his property and alleges that the note secured by the mortgage was paid or was to be paid out of rents collected by the mortgagor, and the matter is referred to a referee by consent: *Held,,*the mortgagor is entitled to a finding of fact as to whether the note had been paid or was to be paid out of rents, and where the report of the referee does not contain any finding on this aspect of the case the cause will be remanded on the mortgagor’s exception to the report.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Grady, J.,*at June Term, 1932, of New HaNOVEB.

Civil action to restrain threatened foreclosure under third deed of trust, and for an accounting.

On 21 April, 1930, plaintiffs executed a note to the defendant, E. L. White, for $694.16, secured by third mortgage, or third deed of trust, on plaintiffs’ home and dairy, O. 0. Allsbrook, employee of defendant’s company, being named as trustee therein.

At the February Term, 1932, New Hanover Superior Court, the cause was by consent referred to Hon, K. 0. Burgwin to find the facts and report the same together with his conclusion of law to the court. It was further adjudged that the temporary restraining order be continued upon execution by the plaintiffs of an indemnity bond in the sum of $500; otherwise, the restraining order was to be dissolved and vacated if said bond was not furnished within ten days.

The sale was thereafter had on 25 March as plaintiffs were unable to post the required bond, but the matter is still in *custodia legis.*

The referee in his report states the account between the parties, but he fails to find whether the note secured by the third deed of trust, as alleged by plaintiffs, has been paid or was to be paid from rents collected by the defendant. Exception; overruled.

From a judgment affirming the report of the referee, the plaintiffs appeal, assigning errors.

*I. G. Wright and B. G. Grady for plaintiffs.*

*Chas. B. Newcomb and John A. Stevens for defendants.*

Stacy, O. J.,

after stating the case: From the pleadings, it would seem that plaintiffs are entitled to a finding on their allegation that the *499note secured by the third deed of trust has been paid or was to be paid from rents collected by the defendant. *Stockton v. Lenoir,*201 N. C., 88, 158 S. E., 856, *S. c.,*198 N. C., 148, 150 S. E., 886; *Parker Co. v. Bank,*200 N. C., 441, 157 S. E., 419; *Justice v. Coxe,*198 N. C., 263, 151 S. E., 252; *Bank v. Winslow,*193 N. C., 470, 137 S. E., 320; *Typewriter Co. v. Hardware Go.,*143 N. C., 97, 55 S. E., 417; *Evans v. Freeman,*142 N. C., 61, 54 S. E., 847; *Gooch v. Vaughan,*92 N. C., 611. To this end, the order of confirmation will be vacated and the cause remanded for further proceedings as to justice appertains and as the rights of the parties may require.

Error and remanded.
#### Emily P. Streeter and another, Appellants, v. John L. Ward, Respondent.

—Judgment of the Oneida County Court affirmed, with costs. Opinion by

Follett, J.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 64043]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30307]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. TM96-3-86-000]


Pacific Gas Transmission Co; Notice of Compliance Filing

December 7, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1995, Pacific Gas Transmission 
Company (PGT) tendered for filing as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, First 
Revised Volume No. 1-A: Tenth Revised Sheet No. 4; and as part of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 1: Ninth Revised Sheet No. 
7. PGT requested the above-referenced tariff sheets become effective 
January 1, 1996.
    PGT asserts that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
Paragraphs 37 and 23 of the terms and conditions of First Revised 
Volume No. 1-A and Second Revised Volume No. 1, respectively, of its 
FERC Gas Tariff, ``Adjustment for Fuel, Line Loss and Other Unaccounted 
For Gas Percentages.'' These tariff changes reflect a reduction in 
PGT's fuel and line loss surcharge percentage to become effective 
January 1, 1996. Also included, as required by Paragraphs 37 and 23, 
are workpapers showing the derivation of the current fuel and line loss 
percentage in effect for each month the fuel tracking mechanism has 
been in effect.
    PGT further states that a copy of this filing has been served on 
PGT's judrisdicational customers and interested state regulatory 
agencies.
    Any person desiring to be heard or protest said filing should file 
a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in 
accordance with Sections 385.214 and 385.211 of the Commission's Rules 
of Practice and Procedure. Pursuant to Section 154.210 of the 
Commission's regulations, all such motions or protests must be filed 
not later than 12 days after the date of the filing noted above. 
Protests will be considered by the Commission in determining the 
appropriate action to be taken, but will not serve to make protestants 
parties to the proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must 
file a motion to intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30307 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<!--/* //NOSONAR */--><html  lang="en-US">
<head id="Head"><meta id="MetaDescription" name="DESCRIPTION" /><meta id="MetaKeywords" name="KEYWORDS" /><meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width,initial-scale=1" /><title>
	2023 USSPACECOM Magazine
</title><link id="css3605" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/DesktopModules/ArticleCS/module.css" /><link id="css4619" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/desktopmodules/ArticleCS/styles/DOD2/style.css" /></head>
<body>
    <main>
    <div>
    <div class="aprint news">
    <div class="header">
        <img height="100" class="print-logo" alt="Site Logo" src="/Portals/57/spacecom-logo.png?ver=DL6eDR7B9pBwEnWyDk78jA%3d%3d" />

        <h1 class="title">2023 USSPACECOM Magazine</h1>
    </div>
    

    <div> <span class="date">/ Published April 14, 2023</span></div>
    <span class="dateline-text"></span>
    <div style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://media.defense.gov/2023/Apr/14/2003199875/-1/-1/1/2023%20USSPACECOM%20MAGAZINE.PDF"><img alt="" src="/Portals/57/2023%20Magazine%20Cover.JPG" style="width: 600px; height: 772px;" title="" /></a></div>
<br />
</div>

    </div>
    </main>
</body>
</html>
#### Antonio Palomebella *vs.*George L. Foss.

Hampden.

November 2, 1931

November 2, 1931.

Present: Rugg, C.J., Pierce, Wait, Sanderson, & Field, JJ.

*Negligence,*Contributory, Motor vehicle, In use of way.

On conflicting evidence at the trial of an action of tort for personal injuries and property damage arising from a collision at the inter- '' section of two streets between an automobile operated by the plaintiff and an automobile operated by the defendant, the question, whether the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence, was for the jury.

Tort. Writ dated October 10, 1928.

The action was tried in the Superior Court before *Lummus,*J. Material evidence is stated in the opinion. The judge denied a motion by the defendant that a verdict be ordered in his favor. There was a verdict for the plaintiff in the sum of $500. The defendant alleged an exception.

The case was submitted on briefs.

*E. W. Sawyer & B. S. Spooner,*for the defendant.

*J. J. Higgins,*for the plaintiff.

Rugg, C.J.

This is ah action of tort to recover compensation for damage to an automobile owned and operated by the plaintiff and for personal injuries received by him, alleged to have been caused by reason of a collision with an automobile' owned and negligently operated by the defendant. The answer was a general denial and an allegation of contributory negligence. The exceptions raise only the question whether the case rightly was submitted to the jury oh the due care and contributory negligence of the plaintiff. *O’Connor*v. *Hickey,*268 Mass. 454. The burden of proving contributory negligence rested upon the defendant. G. L. c. 231, § 85. It is not necessary to recite the evidence in detail. It was somewhat conflicting. There were no irrefutable physical facts with a decisive bearing upon this question. The accident occurred at the *144intersection of two streets. There was evidence which, if believed, tended to show that the plaintiff, nearing the intersection at a rate of speed of eight or nine miles an hour, looked in both directions for approaching vehicles but did not see the automobile of the defendant, that the defendant “was going about forty miles per hour,” and that the plaintiff’s motor vehicle was struck broadside by that of the defendant and overturned. This evidence together with all the circumstances was sufficient to bring the case within the general rule that, when a collision between vehicles occurs at intersecting streets, the issue of the plaintiff’s due care and contributory negligence ordinarily presents a question of fact and cannot be ruled as matter of law. *Dillon*v. *Plimpton,*239 Mass. 588. *Clay*v. *Pope & Cottle Co.*273 Mass. 40, 44.

*Exceptions overruled.*
#### ARTHUR M. WATERS v. LEVIN WATERS.

(Filed 5 November, 1930.)

1. Trial F a — Submission of one issue will not be held for error where appellant has had opportunity to present all contentions to jury.

The submission by the trial court to the jury of only one issue will not be held for error where the appellant has been afforded ample opportunity to present all his contentions, both as to law and fact, thereunder.

*6682. Appeal and Error E a — The pleadings are necessary part of record proper and where they do not appear therein the appeal will be dismissed.

The rules of practice in the Supreme Court require among other things that the pleadings, issues and judgment shall be a part of the record proper, and this appeal, the record not including the summons or complaint, and the Court, consequently not being informed as to the nature of the action, is dismissed.

Appeal by defendant from *Nuwn, J.,*at May Term, 1930, of Beaufort.

Civil action presumably for debt, tried upon the following issue: “In what amount, if any, is defendant indebted to plaintiff ? Answer: $125.00 with interest.”

Judgment on the verdict, from which the defendant appeals, assigning as error the refusal of the court to submit other issues.

The record contains the following recital: “The judge in his charge to the jury gave the contentions of both plaintiff and defendant, and charged the law arising upon same.”

*MacLean & Rodman for plaintiff.*

*A. W. Bailey and L. M. Scott for defendant.*

Stact, C. J.

It appearing that each party was granted full and ample opportunity to present his contentions, both as to the law and the facts, no error can be imputed to the trial court in submitting the matter to the jury on a single issue. *Potato Co. v. Jeanette,*174 N. C., 236, 93 S. E., 795.

Furthermore, it is provided by Rule 19, sec. 1, of the Rules of Practice in the Supreme Court that “the pleadings on which the case is tried, the issues and the judgment appealed from shall be a part of the transcript in all cases.” 192 N. C., p. 847. No summons or complaint appears in the record, hence we are not properly informed as to the nature of the action. The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed for failure to send up the necessary parts of the record proper. *Platt v. Const. Co.,*198 N. C., 782.

Appeal dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 234 (Wednesday, December 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 62480]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-29751]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Employment and Training Administration


National Skill Standards Board; Notice of Opening Meeting

AGENCY: Employment and Training Administration, Labor.

ACTION: Notice of open meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The National Skill Standards Board was established by an Act 
of Congress, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act of 1994, Title V, Pub. 
L. 103-227. The 28-member National Skill Standards Board will serve as 
a catalyst and be responsible for the development and implementation of 
a national system of voluntary skill standards and certification 
through voluntary partnerships which have the full and balanced 
participation of business, industry, labor, education and other key 
groups.

TIME AND PLACE: The meeting will be held from 8 a.m. to approximately 
4:30 p.m. on Thursday, January 11, 1996, in the Arlington/Monticello 
Room, 2nd Floor of the Madison Hotel at 15th & M Streets N.W., 
Washington, D.C.

AGENDA: The agenda for the Board Meeting will include presentations on 
Existing Occupational Classification Systems, Skill Standards 
Initiatives in the States and discussion of upcoming National Skill 
Standards Board Public Hearings.

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION: The meeting from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., is open to 
the public. Seating is limited and will be available on a first-come, 
first-served basis. Seats will be reserved for the media. Disabled 
individuals should contact Ed Rugenstein at (301) 495-1591, if special 
accommodations are needed.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed Rugenstein at (301) 495-1591.

    Signed at Washington, D.C., this 30th day of November, 1995.
Judy Gray,
Executive Director, National Skill Standards Board.
[FR Doc. 95-29751 Filed 12-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M