alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 12525]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5515]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 261, 271, and 302

[SWH-FRL-5167-2]
RIN 2050-AD80


Postponement of Public Hearing on the Proposed Identification and 
Listing of Hazardous Waste/Dye and Pigment Industries

agency: Environmental Protection Agency.

action: Notice of postponement of public hearing.

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

summary: On December 22, 1994 (see 59 FR 66072-114), the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency) proposed to list as 
hazardous five wastes generated during the production of dyes and 
pigments, proposed not to list six other wastes from these industries, 
and proposed to defer action on three wastes due to insufficient 
information. At the request of the parties originally seeking a public 
hearing concerning this proposal, the Agency is announcing the 
postponement of the public hearing, previously scheduled to be held on 
March 15, 1995, in Washington, DC.

dates: The public hearing has not been rescheduled.

addresses: The RCRA regulatory docket that contains the record for this 
proposed listing determination on wastes from the production of dyes 
and pigments is located at Room 2616, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street SW., 
Washington, DC. the docket is open from 9 am to 4 pm, Monday through 
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. The public must make an appointment 
to review docket materials by calling (202) 260-9327.

for further information contact: For technical information concerning 
this notice, please contact Wanda Levine, Office of Solid Waste (5304), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 
20460, (202) 260-7458.

supplementary information: Since publication of this proposed rule, the 
Agency had received requests for a public hearing from the trade 
association representing the pigments industry, the Color Pigments 
Manufacturers Association (CPMA); and the trade association 
representing the dyes industry, the Ecological and Toxicological 
Association of Dyes and Organic Pigments Manufacturers (ETAD). After 
the announcement of the public hearing in the Wednesday, February 8, 
1995 Federal Register (see 60 FR 7513-4), both associations requested 
that it be postponed pending resolution of several outstanding issues. 
In response to these requests, EPA has decided to postpone the public 
hearing. EPA may reschedule the public hearing in the future, and will 
provide further notice at that time.

    Dated: March 1, 1995.
Michael H. Shapiro, Director,
Office of Solid Waste.
[FR Doc. 95-5515 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
```

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 31 (Wednesday, February 17, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 8071]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03386]

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

FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM

Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

TIME AND DATE: 10:00 a.m., Friday, February 19, 2016.

PLACE: Marriner S. Eccles Federal Reserve Board Building, 20th and C 
Streets NW., Washington, DC 20551.

STATUS: Closed.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: Reserve bank personnel matters.

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: Michelle Smith, Director, or Dave 
Skidmore, Assistant to the Board, Office of Board Members at 202-452-
2955.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: You may contact the Board's Web site at 
http://www.federalreserve.gov for an electronic announcement that not 
only lists applications but also indicates procedural and other 
information about the meeting.

    Dated: February 12, 2016.
Robert deV. Frierson,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 2016-03386 Filed 2-12-16; 4:15 pm]
 BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
```
ex10-1.htm






EXHIBIT 10.1




 


SECOND AMENDMENT TO TAX BENEFITS PRESERVATION PLAN


 


THIS SECOND AMENDMENT (the “Amendment”) dated as of June 17, 2011, is entered into by and between United Community Banks, Inc., a Georgia corporation (the “Company”), and Illinois Stock Transfer Company, an Illinois corporation (the “Rights Agent”).  Capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the respective meanings set forth in the Plan (as defined below).


 


WHEREAS, the parties entered into that certain Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, dated as of February 22, 2011 and amended by that certain Amendment to Tax Benefits Preservation Plan, dated as of March 29, 2011 (the “Plan”); and


 


WHEREAS, the parties desire to amend certain provisions of the Plan to reflect the 1-for-5 reverse stock split with respect to the Common Stock, effective as of June 17, 2011.


 


NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the mutual covenants, representations and warranties herein contained, the parties hereto, intending to be legally bound, hereby agree as follows:


 


1.           Section 1(p) of the Plan is hereby by amended by deleting “$8.00” and replacing it with “$40.00.”


 


2.           Except as set forth in this Amendment, the other provisions of the Plan shall remain in full force and effect in accordance with their respective terms.  This Amendment may be executed in two or more counterparts, all of which shall be considered one and the same agreement, and shall become effective when one or more such counterparts have been signed by each of the parties and delivered to the other party.


 







 


[SIGNATURE PAGE FOLLOWS]


 




  





1











  






 


IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed and delivered this Amendment as of the date first above written.


 


 



	 	UNITED COMMUNITY BANKS, INC.
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Rex S. Schuette  
	 	 	 
	 	Name:	Rex S. Schuette    
	 	 	 
	 	Title:	EVP & CFO
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	ILLINOIS STOCK TRANSFER COMPANY
	 	 	 
	 	 	 
	 	By:	/s/ Robert G. Pearson   
	 	 	 
	 	Name:	Robert G. Pearson
	 	 	 
	 	Title:	President & CEO  





 








 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


 


[Signature Page to Second Amendment to Tax Benefits Preservation Plan]
1

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 

### IN THE SUPREME COURT IN AND FOR THE STATE OF MONTANA **Case No. DA -**  **24 -**  **0357**

____________________________________________________________________________ **STATE OF MONTANA,** Plaint iff,
vs. **DESIREA GARRERA**  **,** Defendant. **Case No.** 

### DA - 24 - 0357
**ORDER GRANTING**  **EXTENSION OF**

**TIME**

The Counsel having filed an Unopposed Motion requesting for a 30

- day extensio n of time af ter July 10, 2024. **IT IS HEREBY ORDERED** that the motion is granted and that Defense may submit their Opening Brief by

A ugust 9, 2024.
Electronically signed and dated below.

Electronically signed by: Bowen Greenwood Clerk of the Supreme Court July 1 2024

07/01/2024

Case Number: DA 24-0357
U.S. flagAn official website of the United States government
                    Here's how you know **Official websites use .gov**
                            
                            A **.gov** website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.
 **Secure .gov websites use HTTPS**
                            
                            A **lock** (                            
                              A locked padlock                                                      
                            
                            ) or **https://** means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.


Menu Agricultural Research Service
						
                    U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
 Nutrition, Growth and Physiology: Clay Center, NE
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    Careers


        


                    USMARC Home
                    USMARC Research Units
                        Genetics and Animal Breeding
                                    Meat Safety & Quality
                                    Livestock Bio Systems
                                    Animal Health GenomicsSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Plains Area Clay Center, Nebraska U.S. Meat Animal Research Center Nutrition, Growth and Physiology Research





- ARS National Programs
- Search for a scientific manuscript
- Search for a research project
- ARS Software
- Programs and Projects
- Collaborations
- Subjects of Investigation
- Publications
- IACUC Summaries

Research Projects Subjects of Investigation at this LocationEach ARS research project has related subjects of investigation.  Listed below are the subjects of investigation currently conducted at this location.
Clicking on a subject of investigation will list the research projects within that  subject of investigation.Subjects of Investigation
                            Beef cattle, live animal
                                Swine, live animal


Return to top


Connect with ARS Sign up


ARS Home
                            USDA.gov
                            Plain Writing
                            Policies & Links
                            Civil Rights Statements
                            FOIA
                            Accessibility Statement
                            Privacy Policy
                            Non-Discrimination Statement
                            Quality of Information
                            USA.gov
                            WhiteHouse.gov
#### CORRIE WILLIAMS, Administratrix of CLAUDE WILLIAMS, v. BEMIS LUMBER COMPANY.

(Filed 18 December, 1929.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *McElroy, J.,*at June Term, 1929, of Graham.

Affirmed.

*T. M. Jenlcins and A. Hall Johnston for plainiiff.*

*R. L. Phillips for defendant.*

*815Per Curiam.

Tbis action was instituted by the plaintiff to recover damages of the defendant for the alleg'ed negligent infliction of personal injury resulting in the death of her intestate. At the conclusion of the evidence judgment of nonsuit was rendered and the plaintiff excepted and appealed.

The judgment must be affirmed. The evidence considered in the light most favorable to the plaintiff is not sufficient to sustain a judgment against the defendant. The record presents nothing more than familiar and established principles in the law of negligence and a repeated application of these principles to evidence is deemed to be unnecessary.

Judgment affirmed.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF BIOSHIELD TECHNOLOGIES, INC. FOR THE 9 MONTHS ENDED
MARCH 31, 1999 AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL
STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                       2,868,543
<SECURITIES>                                    91,000
<RECEIVABLES>                                  157,254
<ALLOWANCES>                                    30,000
<INVENTORY>                                    100,350
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,240,721
<PP&E>                                         154,464
<DEPRECIATION>                                  34,123
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,476,512
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          173,198
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     6,480,738
<OTHER-SE>                                  (3,177,424)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,476,512
<SALES>                                        286,182
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               286,182
<CGS>                                          120,726
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  610,436
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             1,148,203
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                18,095
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,960
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             (1,536,020)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         (1,536,020)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                (1,536,020)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (0.27)<F1>
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
<FN>
<F1>DILUTED LOSS PER COMMON SHARE IS NOT DISCLOSED BECAUSE THE EFFECT OF THE
EXCHANGE OR EXERCISE OF COMMON STOCK EQUIVALENTS WOULD BE ANTIDILUTIVE
</FN>
        

</TABLE>
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-6650

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

versus

JULIUS WILLIAM HILL, JR., a/k/a Butch Hill,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle

District of North Carolina, at Salisbury. Frank W. Bullock, Jr.,

Chief District Judge. (CR-92-83-S, CR-92-84-S, CA-97-489-4)

Submitted: September 30, 1998 Decided: October 15, 1998

Before ERVIN, LUTTIG, and WILLIAMS, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Julius William Hill, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Jane Hairston,

Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
2

PER CURIAM:

Julius William Hill, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court’s

order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West 1994

& Supp. 1998). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s

opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and

find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district

court. United States v. Hill, Nos. CR-92-83-S; CR-92-84-S; CA-97-

489-4 (M.D.N.C. Apr. 17, 1998). We dispense with oral argument

because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in

the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
#### Charles S. Turner, Respondent, v. The Midland Railway Company of New Jersey, Appellant.

Judgment affirmed, with costs.

Opinion by

Brady, J.
## IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS

NO. WR
- 93 , 076
- 0 1

EX PARTE SYLVESTER HALLMAN MOORE , Applicant

ON APPLICATION FOR A WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS CAUSE NO. 15 , 995 A IN THE 294 TH DISTRICT COURT FROM VAN ZANDT COUNTY
Y EARY , J., filed a concurring opinion in which K ELLER , P.J., and S LAUGHTER , J., joined . CONCURRING OPI NION In 2002, Applicant, Sylvester Hallman Moore , was convicted of murder and sentenced to ninety

- nine years’ imprisonment. The Fifth Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction in 2004

. Moore v. State , No. 05

- 03

- 01121

- CR , 2004 WL 1832885 (Tex. App.

— Dallas Aug

. 17, 2004) (not designated for publication). In 2021, Applicant filed this application for writ of habeas corpus in the county of conviction, alleging that his trial counsel was ineffective

. T EX

. C ODE C RIM

. P ROC

. art. 11.07. Today, the Court remands this application to the trial court to further develop the record . I agree this application should be remanded , and so I join the Court’s order doing so. But I write separately, as I have previously, to address my thoughts concerning theMOORE

— 2 doctrine of laches and its possible application to this case

. See Ex parte Smith , 444 S.W.3d 661 (Tex. Crim. App. 2014) ( holding a tri al court has the authority to sua sponte consider the doctrine of laches) ; Ex parte Sepeda , No. WR

- 92,711

- 01, 2021 WL 2450089 (Tex. Crim. App. June 16, 2021) (per curiam) (not designated for publication) (Yeary, J., concurring) ( reviewing Ex parte Smith ’s holding and the principles that justify a trial
court’s sua sponte authority to consider laches )

. The doctrine of laches ought to be considered in a case like this one

. Applicant ’ s trial occurred in 2002 , but this application was not filed until nearly nineteen years later. 1
In addition , the record is silent regarding circumstances that may excuse Applicant ’ s delay. Consistent with this Court ’ s precedent, the trial court may, sua sponte , give Applicant the opportunity to explain the reasons for the delay

. It may also give the State ’s prosecutors and/or former counsel for Applicant an opportunity to state whether Applicant ’ s delay has caused any prejudice to their ability to defend against Applicant ’ s cla ims. And ultimately, the trial court may include findings of fact and conclusions of law concerning the doctrine of laches in its response to this Court ’ s remand order. With these additional thoughts, I join the Court ’ s order.

FILED : September 29, 2021 DO NOT PUBLISH

1 “Our revised approach will permit courts to more broadly consider the diminished memories of trial participants and the diminished availability of the State's evidence, both of which may often be said to occur beyond five years after a conviction becomes f inal.” Ex parte Perez , 398 S.W.3d 206, 216 (Tex. Crim. App. 2013) (citing Ex parte Steptoe , 132 S.W.3d 434, 437

– 39 (Tex. Crim. App. 2004) (Cochran, J., dissenting)).
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11485

Trio Engineered Products:

The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the product exclusion request referenced 

above has been denied. As you are aware, USTR published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 

28710) on June 20, 2018, that announced the Trade Representative’s determination to impose an 

additional duty of 25 percent on certain products from China. On July 11, 2018, the Trade 

Representative published a Federal Register notice (83 FR 32181) which announced that a 

process had been established under which interested persons could request that products falling 

within a covered HTSUS subheading be excluded from the additional duties announced on June 

20.

Your request was reviewed in accordance with the factors and procedures set forth in 

Section B(1) of the July 11 notice. Based on that review, and after careful consideration, your 

request was denied because the request failed to show that the imposition of additional duties on 

the particular product would cause severe economic harm to you or other U.S. interests.

Because USTR will grant exclusion requests on a product specific basis, you may still 

benefit from a product exclusion if a similar product is granted an exclusion. Products for which 

an exclusion has been granted will be periodically announced on the USTR website. Product 

exclusions will become legally effective once published in the Federal Register. 

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

BRENDA SANCHEZ

Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee.

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-22-00161-CR

Appeal from the

171st Judicial District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC# 20190D06572)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 31ST DAY OF JANUARY 2024.

LISA J. SOTO, Justice

Before Alley, C.J., Palafox and Soto, JJ.
#### ROBERT TERRY v. MONTGOMERY WARD COMPANY and TOM TERRY and ELSIE LYNN TERRY v. MONTGOMERY WARD COMPANY and TOM TERRY.

(Filed 15 June, 1936.)

Automobiles E b—

In order to bold an employer liable for tbe • negligent driving of bis employee, plaintiff must establish not only.tbe fact of employment, but also that tbe employee, at tbe time of tbe collision, was engaged in tbe performance of some duty incident to bis employment.

Appeal by plaintiffs from *Gracly, J.,*at September Term, 1935, of Durham.

Affirmed.

Tbe above entitled actions to recover damages for injuries suffered by tbe plaintiff in each action, and resulting from a collision between a truck driven by tbe defendant Tom Terry and an automobile in which tbe plaintiffs were riding, were consolidated, by consent, for trial.

It is alleged in tbe complaint in each action that tbe collision which resulted in injury to tbe plaintiff therein was caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant Tom Terry, while driving tbe truck as an employee of bis codefendant, Montgomery Ward Company. This allegation is denied in tbe answer of tbe defendants.

From judgment dismissing both actions as to tbe defendant Montgomery Ward Company, the plaintiffs appealed to tbe Supreme Court, assigning errors in tbe trial and in tbe judgment.

*Henry Bane and Harvey Harward for plaintiff.*

*Bryant & J ones for defendant.*

*352Per Curiam.

Conceding without deciding that there was evidence at the trial of these actions tending to show that at the time the plaintiffs were injured, the defendant Tom Terry was an employee of his co-defendant, Montgomery Ward Company, and was not an independent contractor as contended by the defendants, we are of opinion that there was no evidence tending to show that the defendant Tom Terry was at the time of the collision engaged in the performance of any duty incident to his employment.

For this reason, there is no error in the judgment dismissing the action as to the defendant Montgomery Ward Company at the close of the evidence. See *Wilkie v. Stancil,*196 N. C., 794, 147 S. E., 296; *Peters v. Tea Company,*194 N. C., 172, 138 S. E., 595; *Grier v. Grier,*192 N. C., 760, 135 S. E., 852.

The judgment is

Affirmed.
In re Comfort

RobertsAppellant/s

Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

February 24, 2014

No. 04-14-00055-CV

IN RE Comfort ROBERTS

Original Mandamus Proceeding1

ORDER

Sitting: Sandee Bryan Marion, Justice

Patricia O. Alvarez, Justice

Luz Elena D. Chapa, Justice

On February 3, 2014, relator filed a motion for rehearing. The panel has considered the

motion and it is DENIED.

It is so ORDERED on February 24th, 2014. PER CURIAM

ATTESTED TO: _____________________________

Keith E. Hottle

Clerk of Court

1 This proceeding arises out of Cause No. 2013CI12260, styled Lloyd Douglas Enterprises, Inc. d/b/a River City

Care Center and Steve Robinson v. Comfort Roberts, Joe A. Fuentes, Cynthia Huggins and Ida Jackson, pending in

the 166th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas, the Honorable Janet Littlejohn presiding.

FILE COPY