alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 238 (Tuesday, December 12, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 63701]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30183]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP96-74-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Proposed Changes in 
FERC Gas Tariff

December 6, 1995.
    Take notice that on December 1, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas 
Company (CIG), tendered for filing to become part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, Second Substitute Fourteenth 
Revised Sheet No. 11. CIG requests that the proposed tariff sheet be 
made effective on January 1, 1996.
    CIG states that this filing is being made pursuant to CIG's FERC 
Gas Tariff, First Revised Volume No. 1, General Terms and Conditions, 
Article 21.7 (Account No. 858 Stranded Costs).
    CIG states that copies of the filing were served upon the company's 
jurisdictional customers and interested state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to 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 Sec. 385.211 of the Commission's Rules and 
Regulations. Pursuant to Sec. 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 filings 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 
the filings are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection in the Public Reference Room.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-30183 Filed 12-11-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 32

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND CHIEFFINANCIAL OFFICER

PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTEDPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

** **

In connection with the reporton Form 10-Q of Solar Energy Limited for the quarterly period ended September30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the datehereof, I, Michael James Gobuty, do hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C.§1350, as adopted pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, tothe best of my knowledge and belief:

 

(1)  This report fully complies withthe requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of1934; and

(2)  The information contained in thisreport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition ofthe registrant at the end of the period covered by this report and results ofoperations of the registrant for the period covered by this report.

 

 

Date: December 22, 2010

 

 

__/s/ Michael Gobuty___________________

Michael James Gobuty 

Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer

 

 

This certificationaccompanies this report pursuant to §906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 andshall not, except to the extent required by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, bedeemed filed by the registrant for the purposes of §18 of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934, as amended. This certification shall not be incorporatedby reference into any filing under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, orthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (whether made before or afterthe date of this report), irrespective of any general incorporation languagecontained in such filing.

 

A signed original of thiswritten statement required by §906 has been provided to the registrant and willbe retained by the registrant and furnished to the Securities and ExchangeCommission or its staff upon request.

 

 

----
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 239 (Wednesday, December 13, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 64067-64068]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-30393]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Health Care Financing Administration


Public Information Collection Requirements Submitted for Public 
Comment and Recommendations

AGENCY: Health Care Financing Administration, HHS.
    In compliance with the requirement of section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the Health Care Financing 
Administration (HCFA), Department of Health and Human Services, has 
submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) the following 
proposal for the collection of information. Interested persons are 
invited to send comments regarding the burden estimate or any other 
aspect of this collection of information, including any of the 
following subjects: (1) The necessity and utility of the proposed 
information collection for the proper performance of the agency's 
functions; (2) the accuracy of the estimated burden; (3) ways to 
enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be 
collected; and (4) the use of automated collection techniques or other 
forms of information technology to minimize the information collection 
burden.

1. Type of Information Collection Request: Reinstatement, with change, 
of a previously approved collection for which approval has expired.
Title of Information Collection: Request for Medicare Payment-
Ambulance.
Form No.: HCFA-1491.
Use: This form is completed on an ``occasional'' basis by beneficiaries 
and/or ambulance services. It is also submitted to a Medicare carrier 
to request payment for ambulance services.
Frequency: On occasion.
Affected Public: Individuals or households, business or other for-
profit, not-for-profit institutions.
Number of Respondents: 8,513,300.
Total Annual Hours Requested: 1,418,883.
    To request copies of the proposed paperwork collections referenced 
above, E-mail your request, including your address, to 
P<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#afcedfcaddd8c0ddc4efc7ccc9ce81c8c0d9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e2f3e2b3c39213c250e262d282f60292138">[email protected]</span></a>, or call the Reports Clearance Office on (410) 786-
1326. Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information 
collections should be sent 

[[Page 64068]]
within 30 days of this notice directly to the OMB Desk Officer 
designated at the following address: OMB Human Resources and Housing 
Branch, Attention: Allison Eydt, New Executive Office Building, Room 
10235, Washington, D.C. 20503.

    Dated: December 5, 1995.
Kathleen B. Larson,
Director, Management Planning and Analysis Staff, Office of Financial 
and Human Resources, Health Care Financing Administration.
[FR Doc. 95-30393 Filed 12-12-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4120-03-P

</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 11-3310

___________

Mark Henderson, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. *

*

Ray Hobbs, Director, Arkansas * Appeal from the United States

Department of Correction; Larry May, * District Court for the

Deputy Assistant Director, Arkansas * Eastern District of Arkansas.

Department of Correction; William *

Straughn, Warden, Maximum Security * [UNPUBLISHED]

Unit, ADC; Steve Outlaw, Assistant *

Warden, Maximum Security Unit, *

ADC; Terry Murphy, Maintenance *

Supervisor, Maximum Security Unit, *

ADC; David White, Former Warden, *

Maximum Security Unit, ADC, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 22, 2012

Filed: March 23, 2012

___________

Before MURPHY, ARNOLD, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

___________
PER CURIAM.

Mark Henderson appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary

1

judgment in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Upon careful de novo review, see Mason

v. Corr. Med. Servs., Inc., 559 F.3d 880, 884-85 (8th Cir. 2009), we conclude that

summary judgment was properly granted by the district court.

Accordingly, we affirm the judgment. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable Susan Webber Wright, United States District Judge for the

1

Eastern District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendations of the

Honorable Joe J. Volpe, United States Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of

Arkansas.

-2-
```

[Congressional Bills 113th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 5766 Introduced in House (IH)]

113th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 5766

   To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify the criteria for 
selecting communities to participate in the Small Community Air Service 
              Development Program, and for other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           November 20, 2014

  Mr. O'Rourke (for himself and Mr. Lamborn) introduced the following 
    bill; which was referred to the Committee on Transportation and 
                             Infrastructure

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To amend title 49, United States Code, to modify the criteria for 
selecting communities to participate in the Small Community Air Service 
              Development Program, and for other purposes.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``21st Century SCASDP Act''.

SEC. 2. SMALL COMMUNITY AIR SERVICE DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM.

    Section 41743(c)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is amended to 
read as follows:
            ``(1) Size.--On the date of submission of an application by 
        a community or consortium under subsection (b), the airport 
        serving the community or consortium--
                    ``(A) is not larger than a small hub airport, as 
                determined using the Department of Transportation's 
                most recent published classification; and
                    ``(B)(i) has insufficient air carrier service; or
                    ``(ii) has unreasonably high air fares.''.
                                 <all>
```
EXHIBIT
13.1  CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13(a)-14(b) UNDER THE
EXCHANGE ACT AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE  In connection with the annual report of Masonite
International Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Frederick Lynch, President
and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, hereby 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/
  Frederick LynchName:
  Frederick LynchTitle:
  President and Chief Executive OfficerDate:
  April 24,
  2008


CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO RULE 13(a)-14(b) UNDER THE
EXCHANGE ACT AND SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63 OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED
STATES CODE  In connection with the annual report of Masonite
International Inc. (the Company)
on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I,Anthony D. DiLucente, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
hereby 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/
  Anthony D. DiLucenteName:
  Anthony D. DiLucenteTitle:
  Chief Financial OfficerDate:
  April 24,
  2008
#### Donald L. Schild, Appellant, v Ankrah T. Kingsley et al., Defendants, and Aaron E. Wrighton et al., Respondents. Donald L. Schild, Respondent, v Ankrah T. Kingsley et al., Defendants, and Aaron E. Wrighton et al., Appellants.

[773 NYS2d 20]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Dianne Renwick, J.), entered April 10, 2003, which, to the extent appealed from, granted the motion of defendants Wrighton and Mendon Leasing for summary judgment dismissing the second cause of action and denied that motion with respect to dismissal of the first cause of action, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Plaintiffs decedent was killed while crossing an intersection on foot. A truck, driven and owned by Wrighton and Mendon Leasing, respectively, was on one side of the street. A taxi, driven, leased and owned by the respective remaining defendants, drove past the truck and hit the decedent. There was competent evidence that the taxi driver may have revved his engine and may have blown his horn before impact, and that the truck driver heard the exclamation “Oh!” just before *104impact. The decedent was thrown in the air, he struck scaffolding, fell to the ground, moved his arm, breathed visibly, and may have survived for up to 28 minutes after impact.

On a motion for summary judgment, defendants bear the initial burden of demonstrating that the decedent did not suffer conscious pain and suffering (see *Massey v New York City Hous. Auth.,*230 AD2d 601, 602 [1996]). Summary dismissal of that claim was properly denied. On the other hand, the evidence showed that the decedent was an emancipated adult who did not provide pecuniary aid to any of his family, and that no survivor had a reasonable expectation of pecuniary loss resulting from his death. There is thus no basis for recovery on a claim for wrongful death *(see*EPTL 5-4.3 [a]; *Public Adm’r of Kings County v U.S. Fleet Leasing of N.Y.,*159 AD2d 331 [1990]). Concur—Buckley, P.J., Mazzarelli, Saxe, Ellerin and Marlow, JJ.
#### Rice Lewis v. Caroline H. Merriam.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.
<PAGE>


               EXHIBIT 11.1 - COMPUTATION OF PER SHARE EARNINGS
                   (In thousands, except per share amounts)

<TABLE>
                                                 Three Months Ended   Nine Months Ended 
                                                     January 31,         January 31,
                                                 ------------------   ------------------
                                                   1997       1996       1997      1996 
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------
<S>                                              <C>        <C>       <C>         <C>
Primary:
  Earnings:
    Net income (loss)                            $    36    $  (540)  $ (1,047)  $  (469) 

  Shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding            5,036      5,036      5,036     5,036 
    Net shares issuable on exercise of certain
      stock options                                   --          1         --         1 
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------

    Weighted average shares outstanding,
      as adjusted                                  5,036      5,037      5,036     5,037 

  Per share amounts:
    Net income (loss)                            $   .01    $  (.11)  $   (.21)  $  (.09) 
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------

Fully diluted (A):
  Earnings:
    Net income (loss)                            $    36    $  (540)  $ (1,047)  $  (469) 

  Shares:
    Weighted average shares outstanding            5,036      5,036      5,036     5,036 
    Net shares issuable on exercise of certain
      stock options                                   --          3         45         6 
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------

   Weighted average shares outstanding,
     as adjusted                                   5,036      5,039      5,081     5,042 

  Per share amounts:
    Net income (loss)                            $   .01    $  (.11)  $   (.21)  $  (.09) 
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------
                                                 -------    -------   --------   -------
</TABLE>

Note A:   This calculation is submitted for the three months ended January 31,
          1996, and the nine months ended January 31, 1997 and 1996, in 
          accordance with Regulation S-K item 601(b)(11) although it is 
          contrary to paragraph 40 of APB Opinion No. 15 because it produces
          an anti-dilutive result.
#### CARRIE L. McLEAN, Administratrix of Estate of ESSIE JACKSON, Deceased (Substituted Plaintiff for ESSIE JACKSON, Original Plaintiff, Now Deceased), v. GEORGE E. SCHEIBER and ROBERT PEARSON.

(Filed 24 November, 1937.)

Evidence § 29—

The record of the testimony of a plaintiff in a former action against defendants is incompetent in a subsequent action brought by another plaintiff who was not a party to the former action, even though the actions arise out of the same automobile accident, since the present plaintiff had no opportunity to cross-examine the plaintiff in the former action.

Appeal by defendant Scheiber from *Rousseau, J.,*at May Term, 1937, of MeckleNBUrg. No error.

This was an action to recover for medical and hospital expenses incurred and for lost services of the minor son of plaintiff’s intestate, alleged to have resulted from the negligence of the defendant in the operation of an automobile. Robert Pearson was not served with summons.

The jury answered the issues in favor of the plaintiff, and from judgment on the verdict defendant Scheiber appealed.

*O. H. Gover, William T. Covington, Jr., and Hugh L. Lobdell for plaintiff.*

*Robinson & Jones for defendant.*

PeR Curiam.

The principal question presented by the appeal was as to the admissibility of the transcript of the testimony of the son of plaintiff’s intestate taken in another action, in which the son was plaintiff in a suit against these same defendants for damages for personal injury suffered by him on the identical occasion here alleged *(Jackson v. Scheiber,*209 N. C., 441, 184 S. E., 17). It appeared that in the

*545other ease the plaintiff’s intestate, Essie Jackson, was not a party, and in the trial in which the son’s testimony was taken had no right or opportunity to cross-examine him. The rule was laid down in *Hartis v. Electric R. R.,*162 N. C., 236, 78 S. E., 164, that the admissibility of evidence taken in another case depends upon the identity of the question being investigated and upon the opportunity of the party against whom the evidence is offered to cross-examine. For that reason it would seem that the ruling of the court below must be sustained.

We have examined the other exceptions noted by appellant, and find in them no substantial merit.

In the trial we find

No error.
Second Amend to Employment Agreement between Comcast Corp and Ralph J. Roberts



 Exhibit 10.2 
 SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT 
 This SECOND AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT (the
“Second Amendment”), dated the 10th day of December, 2008, is between
COMCAST CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania corporation (together with its subsidiaries, the “Company”) and RALPH J. ROBERTS (“Employee”). 
 BACKGROUND 
 WHEREAS, Employee has been an employee of the Company since he founded the Company in 1969 and
currently is Chair of the Executive and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors; and 
 WHEREAS, certain terms and conditions of
Employee’s employment with the Company were set forth in a Compensation and Deferred Compensation Agreement, as amended and restated August 31, 1998, and as further amended August 19, 1999, June 5,
2001, January 24, 2002 and November 18, 2002 (the “Compensation Agreement”); and 
 WHEREAS, the Compensation
Agreement’s term ended December 31, 2007 and Employee continues to remain employed by the Company on a full-time basis after the expiration of such term; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties desired to clarify, and memorialize their intention, that certain terms and benefits provided for in the Compensation Agreement continue following the end of its term; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Agreement dated as of January 1, 2008 (the “Agreement”) that continued certain terms and benefits
provided for in the Compensation Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, the parties entered into an Amendment to Agreement dated as of January 1,
2008 (the “Amendment”) to address certain other terms of Employee’s continuing employment with the Company that were not addressed in the Agreement; and 
 WHEREAS, Employee desires to remain as an active director and full-time employee but no longer desires to serve as Chair of the Executive and Finance Committee of the Board of Directors or as a member of the
Company’s Finance Committee. 
 NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound hereby, agree as follows: 







 1. Employee hereby resigns from Employee’s position as Chair of the Executive and Finance Committee
of the Board of Directors of the Company and as a member of the Company’s Finance Committee, in each case effective as of the close of business on the date hereof. Employee shall remain a full-time employee of the Company, having non-executive
status. 
 2. Except as modified hereby, the Agreement shall continue unmodified and in full force and effect. 
 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Second Amendment as of the date first-above written. 
  

	
	COMCAST CORPORATION
	
	 By: /s/    ARTHUR R.
BLOCK        

	
	EMPLOYEE:
	
	 /s/    RALPH J.
ROBERTS        

	 Ralph J. Roberts