alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 27 (Thursday, February 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 7789-7790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3249]



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

INTERSTATE COMMERCE COMMISSION

[Ex Parte No. 394 (Sub-No. 14)]


Cost Ratio For Recyclables--1995 Determination

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce Commission.

ACTION: Establishment of recyclables rate caps.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission has calculated proposed 1995 revenue-to-
variable cost (r/vc) ratios as ceilings for rates on nonferrous 
recyclables under 49 U.S.C. 10731(e). The r/vc ratios were calculated 
in accordance with established procedures using the Uniform Railroad 
Costing System (URCS). Because URCS develops different variability 
percentages for [[Page 7790]] different railroads, the rules (49 CFR 
Part 1145) allow separate r/vc ratio ceilings for individual railroads. 
The proposed national average r/vc ratio for 1995 is 139.5%. Ratios are 
also proposed for individual class I railroads and for the Eastern 
region and the Western region. The Commission is deferring initiation 
of the fourth annual compliance proceeding.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995, unless, within that time, comments are 
received challenging the accuracy of the ratios, in which case a 
further decision will be issued.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert C. Hasek, (202) 927-6239; or H. 
Jeff Warren, (202) 927-6243. [TDD for the hearing impaired: (202) 927-
5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Additional information is contained in the 
Commission's decision. To purchase a copy of the full decision, write 
to, call, or pick up in person from: Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Room 2229, 
Interstate Commerce Commission Building, 1201 Constitution Avenue, 
N.W., Washington, DC 20423 or telephone (202) 289-4357/4359. 
[Assistance for the hearing impaired is available through TDD services 
(202) 927-5721].
    This decision will not significantly affect either the quality of 
the human environment or energy conservation.
    Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), we conclude that our action will not 
have a significant or adverse economic impact on a substantial number 
of small entities within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

    Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10321(a), 10731; 5 U.S.C. 553.

    Decided: January 27, 1995.

    By the Commission, Chairman McDonald, Vice Chairman Morgan, and 
Commissioners Simmons and Owen.
Vernon A. Williams,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3249 Filed 2-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7035-01-P
#### Kenya Richardson et al., Respondents, v Yasuda Bank and Trust Company (USA) et al., Appellants, et al., Defendants.

[772 NYS2d 595]

In an action, inter alia, to recover damages for personal injuries, etc., the defendants Yasuda Bank and Trust Company (USA) and Delta Funding Corp. appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Schmidt, J.), dated April 3, 2003, which denied their motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as asserted against them.

Ordered that the order is reversed, on the law, with costs, the motion is granted, the complaint is dismissed insofar as asserted against the appellants, and the action against the remaining defendants is severed.

*459The plaintiffs sustained injuries as a result of a gas explosion in their residence on June 23, 1997, which originated in an area where an illegal gas diversion line had been installed. Several months before the explosion, the defendant Yasuda Bank and Trust Company (USA) (hereinafter Yasuda) had acquired title to the property following a foreclosure sale, but neither Yasuda nor its servicing agent, the defendant Delta Funding Corp. (hereinafter Delta), were given access to the property. The former owner of the property, who, as the landlord, entered into a lease with the plaintiffs, was still in possession of the property at the time of the explosion. Eviction proceedings against the former owner and the plaintiffs had been commenced and were pending. The former owner of the property was arrested and charged with reckless endangerment, grand larceny, and theft of services.

It is well settled that “the person in possession and control of property is best able to identify and prevent any harm to others” (B*utler v Rafferty,*100 NY2d 265, 270 [2003]). Hence, an out-of-possession owner will not be liable for injuries that occur on the premises unless it has retained control over the premises or is contractually obligated to repair or maintain the premises *(see Eckers v Suede,*294 AD2d 533 [2002]; *Angwin v SRF Partnership,*285 AD2d 570, 571 [2001]).

Yasuda and Delta met their prima facie burden of demonstrating their status as out-of-possession owners, and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact that Yasuda and Delta either retained control of the premises or were contractually obligated to keep the property in good repair *(see Krentsel v Salon Zorina,*292 AD2d 506 [2002]). The record contains no evidence of any contractual relationship among Yasuda, Delta, and the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs failed to controvert the prima facie evidence that the appellants had no access to the premises before the explosion. Under the circumstances, the Supreme Court should have granted summary judgment and dismissed the complaint insofar as asserted against Yasuda and Delta *(see e.g. Eckers v Suede, supra).*

The plaintiffs’ remaining contentions are without merit. Krausman, J.P., Schmidt, Cozier and Mastro, JJ., concur.
EXHIBIT
      23.1





**CONSENT
      OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**





We
      hereby
      consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on
      Form
      S-8 (Nos. 33-88422, 33-99196, 33-94974, 333-65799, 333-36159, 333-82418,
      333-82416 and 333-140539) Form S-3 (File Nos. 333-90017, 333-76614, 333-92174
      and 333-102334) and Form S-1 (File Nos. 333-138109 and 333-143421) of Acorn
      Energy, Inc. of our reports dated April 15, 2008 relating to the financial
      statements and financial statement schedule, which appear in this Form
      10-K.








/s/
        Kesselman & Kesselman
 Certified
        Public Accountants
 A
        member
        of PricewaterhouseCoopers International Limited
 
 April
        15,
        2008
 Tel
        Aviv,
        Israel
reverse_tsaxextensionsec






    1    SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE SERVICES AGREEMENT    This Second Amendment to The Services Agreement (“Second Amendment”), effective as of  September 28, 2022, is made by and between Hot Topic, Inc., a California corporation (“Hot Topic”), and  Torrid LLC, a California limited liability company (“Torrid”). This Second Amendment is made pursuant  to the Services Agreement, dated August 1, 2019 (“Services Agreement”) executed by and between Hot  Topic and Torrid, and as extended by the First Amendment to the Services Agreement dated August 26,  2022. Capitalized terms used herein shall have the respective definitions set forth in the Services  Agreement.   RECITALS  WHEREAS, the Parties entered into the Services Agreement, whereby Torrid agreed to provide  Hot Topic certain information technology services;   WHEREAS, the Parties wish to extend the term of the Services Agreement, under the current terms  and conditions, while the Parties negotiate a longer-term amendment to the Services Agreement with  modified terms and conditions;    NOW THEREFORE, Hot Topic and Torrid agree that the Services Agreement shall be amended  as follows:     1. The Term of the Services Agreement is hereby extended up to and through December 1, 2022. The  Parties may mutually agree in writing to further extensions.    2. For services provided under this Second Amendment, Hot Topic will pay Torrid as follows:  a.  for the period October 1, 2022, through October 31, 2022, the amount of $175,000 payable  by September 30, 2022 to Torrid.  b. For the period November 1, 2022, through November 30, 2022, the amount of $175,000  payable by October 30, 2022 to Torrid.  3. Except as otherwise hereby amended, the Services Agreement is hereby ratified and confirmed in  all other respects.     By signing in the space provided below, the Parties hereto have accepted and agreed to all of the terms  and conditions hereof.        HOT TOPIC, INC. TORRID LLC      By:       By:            Name: __________________________  Name: Tim Martin      Title: ___________________________  Title:  CFO      Date:___________________________  Date:____________________________
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8417-8418]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3641]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
[TA-W-30,332]


INTERA Information Technologies, Inc., Denver, Colorado; Revised 
Determination on Reconsideration

    On January 13, 1995, the Department issued an Affirmative 
Determination Regarding Application for Reconsideration for the workers 
and former workers of the subject firm. The notice was published in the 
Federal Register on January 27, 1995 (60 FR 5438).
    New findings on reconsideration show that the subject firm is 
engaged in operations related to the exploration and drilling for crude 
oil. Workers are engaged in exploration activities in the field for 
unaffiliated firms in the oil industry.
    The findings show decreased revenues in 1994 compared to 1993 and 
substantial worker separations in 1994.
    U.S. imports of crude oil and natural gas increased absolutely and 
relative to domestic shipments in the first eight months of 1994 
compared to the same period in 1993.

Conclusion

    After careful consideration of the new facts obtained on 
reconsideration, it is concluded that the workers and former workers of 
Intera Information Technologies, Inc., in Denver, Colorado were 
adversely affected by increased imports of articles like or directly 
competitive with crude oil.
    Accordingly, in accordance with the provisions of the Act, I make 
the following certification:

    All workers of Intera Information Technologies, Inc., in Denver, 
Colorado who became totally or partially separated from employment 
on or after September 2, 1993 [[Page 8418]] are eligible to apply 
for adjustment assistance under Section 223 of the Trade Act of 
1974.

    Signed at Washington, DC., this 2nd day of February 1995.
Victor J. Trunzo,
Program Manager, Policy and Reemployment Services, Office of Trade 
Adjustment Assistance.
[FR Doc. 95-3641 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-30-M
Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual 

Balance in 

75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

Annual Balance 

in 75th Year

Long-Range 

Actuarial 

Balance

B

7

-1.70% -4.20% -0.98% -1.00% -2.68% 

Estimates based on the intermediate assumptions of the 2008 Trustees Report Office of the Chief A

November 13, 2008

Summary Measures and Graphs

Category of Change: Payroll Tax Rates

Proposed Provision: Beginning in 2009, reduce the combined OASDI payroll tax rate from 11.4 percent.

Present Law Change From Present Law in Results with this 

OASDI Cost Rates and Income Rates

(as a percentage of taxable payroll)

0.02.04.06.08.0

10.012.014.016.018.020.0

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 2068 2078

Year

Percent

Cost rates with this provisionCost rates under present lawIncome rates with this provisionIncome rates under present law

OASDI Trust Fund Ratio

 (assets as a percentage of annual expe

0

100200300400500600700800900

1000

2008 2018 2028 2038 2048 2058 

Year

Percent

Present law With this p
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8648-8649]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3708]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-112-002]


Tennessee Gas Pipeline Co.; Notice of Filing

February 9, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 6, 1995, Tennessee Gas Pipeline 
Company (Tennessee), tendered a response in compliance with the 
Commission's order issued on January 25, 1995, in which the Commission 
suspended Tennessee's general section 4 rate case filed on December 30, 
1994.
    Tennessee states that copies of the filing have been mailed to 
affected parties.
    Any persons desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, [[Page 8649]] 825 North 
Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 
of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR Section 
385.211). All such protests should be filed before February 16, 1995. 
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. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-3708 Filed 2-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 32.2

                           SECTION 1350 CERTIFICATION

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

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Online Vacation Center Holdings Corp.
(the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the quarter ended March 31, 2007 as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),
I, Edward B. Rudner, Principal 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.



Date: May 15, 2007



/s/ Edward B. Rudner
--------------------
Edward B. Rudner
Principal Financial Officer
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 23 (Thursday, February 4, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 6096]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02262]

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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9433]

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Edgar Degas: A Strange New Beauty'' Exhibition

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: 
Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 
(79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 
1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 
Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of 
Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 
of August 28, 2000 (and, as appropriate, Delegation of Authority No. 
257-1 of December 11, 2015), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibition ``Edgar Degas: A Strange New Beauty,'' 
imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, 
are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan 
agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, New York, from on or about March 26, 2016, until 
on or about July 24, 2016, and at possible additional exhibitions or 
venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have 
ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the 
Federal Register.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information, including a 
list of the imported objects, contact the Office of Public Diplomacy 
and Public Affairs in the Office of the Legal Adviser, U.S. Department 
of State (telephone: 202-632-6471; email: [email protected]). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

     Dated: January 29, 2016.
Mark Taplin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-02262 Filed 2-3-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P
```
### NUMBER 13 - 10 - 00 359 - CR 

## COURT OF APPEALS THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS CORPUS CHRISTI - EDINBURG

____________________________________________________________ JOSEPH CHAFFIN , Appellant,

v. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee.

____________________________________________________________

On appeal from the 2 8 th District Court of Nueces County, Texas.

____________________________________________________________



# MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Rodriguez and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam Appellant, Joseph Chaffin , attempted to perfect an appeal from a conviction for aggravated as sault. We dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. This Court's appellate jurisdiction in a criminal case is invoked by a timely filed notice of appeal. Olivo v. State , 918 S.W.2d 519, 522 (Tex. Crim. App. 1996). Absent a timely filed notice of appeal, a court of appeals does not have jurisdiction to address the2

merits of the appeal and can take no action other than to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction. Slaton v. State , 981 S.W.2d 208, 210 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998). The trial court imposed sentence in this matter on June 11, 2009 . Appellant filed his notice of appeal on July 6, 2010

. On September 30, 2010 , the Clerk of this Court notified appellant that it appeared that the appeal was not timely perfec ted and that the appeal would be dismissed if the defect was not corrected within ten days from the date of receipt of the Court = s directive. Appellant ’s counsel has filed a response to the Court = s directive indicating that without a timely written notice of appeal and motion for extension of time to file notice of appeal, the Court lacks jurisdiction. Unless a motion for new trial has been timely filed, a notice of appeal must be filed within thirty days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court, or after the day the trial court enters an appealable order. T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 26.2(a)(1). Where a timely motion for new trial has been filed, the notice of appeal must be filed within ninety days after the day sentence is imposed or suspended in open court. See id. 26.2(a)(2). The time within which to file the notice may be enlarged if, within fifteen days after the deadline for filing the notice, the party files the notice of appeal and a motion complying with Rule 10.5(b) of the Texas Rule s of Appellate Procedure. See id. 26.3. Appellant = s notice of appeal, filed more than twelve months after sentence was imposed, was untimely, and accordingly, we lack jurisdiction over the appeal. See Slaton , 981 S.W.2d at 210 . Appellant may be entitled to an out

- of

- time appeal by filing a post
- conviction writ of habeas corpus returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals; however, the availability of that remedy is beyond the jurisdiction of this Court. See T EX

.3

C ODE C RI M

. P ROC

. A NN . art. 11.07, ' 3(a) (Vernon 2005); see also Ex parte Garcia , 988 S.W.2d 240 (Tex. Crim. App. 1999). The appeal is DISMISSED FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION.

PER CURIAM Do not publish. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P . 47.2(b). D elivered and fi led the 14th d ay of October , 20 10

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Stephen J. Markman,

 Chief Justice

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

Richard H. Bernstein

Kurtis T. Wilder

Elizabeth T. Clement,

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. 

 

 

April 3, 2018 

a0326 

Order 

 

Clerk 

April 3, 2018 

153520 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 153520 

 COA: 330106 

Osceola CC: 01-003282-FH; 

TRAVIS JAMES TROOST, 01-003285-FH 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the February 24, 2016 

order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because the defendant has 

failed to meet the burden of establishing entitlement to relief under MCR 6.508(D). 

WILDER, J., did not participate because he was on the Court of Appeals panel.
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (1)
    
    the report on Form 10-Q of the Company for the three months ended December 31, 2006
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report) fully complies with
the requirements of Section 13(a)-14(b) or 15(d)-14(b) 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 at the dates and for the
periods indicated.
  By:
    
    /s/ PERVEZ QURESHIPervez QureshiPresident & Chief Executive OfficerDate: February 13, 2007
1 Don H. Reavis, Justice (Ret.), was on the panel that heard oral argument . He did

not participa te in the decis ion. T EX . R. A PP . P. 41.1(b). NO. 07-04-0428-CV IN THE COUR

T OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVEN TH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO PANEL E DECEMBER 28 , 2006

______________________________ IN THE INTEREST O F C.H., C .H. AND C .H., CHILD REN

_______________________________ FROM THE 140 TH DISTR ICT CO URT OF LUBBO CK CO UNTY NO. 2002-518,450; HONORABLE J IM BOB DARN ELL, JUDGE

_________________________________ Before CAMPBELL and HANCOCK, JJ. 1 CONCURR ING OPINION I concur w ith the resul t of the majority opinion. How

ever, my conc ur rence is the result of the failure of McCann to either claim surprise at the time the tr ial court made its initial ruling to allow

the testimony

in questi on or to req uest a continuanc e to invest igate the information developed i n the late filed discov ery. See T EX . R. C IV . P. 193.6(a)(2), 193.6(c). Wi th out the requis ite claims by McCann, I c annot find that the tr ial court abu sed its discretion in allow ing the test imony. Owens -Corn ing Fiber glass Cor p. v. Mal one , 972 S.W.2d 35, 43 (Tex. 1998).2

However, this case i s a perfect ex ample of the effect of allow ing the ex ception to the rule of full disc losure, as requir ed by Rule 193, to become the norm by n ot enforcing th e language of the rule. T EX . R. C IV . P. 193. In disc ussing the p recursor to Rule 193, Justice Hecht stated, “To relax the good cause stand ard in Rule 215(5) would impair itspurpose. Counsel should not be excus ed from the requi rements of the rule wi thout a stric t showing of good cause.” Alvarado v. Farah Mfg. Co., Inc. , 830 S.W.2d 911, 915 (Tex. 1992). An attorney simply s tating the fault was al l mine does not add ress the req uirements of the rule. However, the remedy, exclusion of the evidence, more especially in a child custody case where the “best int erest of the chil dren” is par amount, was s omething the trial cour t was not willi ng to do. As I stat ed at the outset, I concur w ith the majori ty, but only because the action taken by M cCann did nothi ng to assis t the trial judg e in addressi ng the remedy, for the failure to fil e answersto discov ery, ex cept by ex clusion of the ev idence.

Mackey K. Hancock Justice