alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 26 (Tuesday, February 9, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Pages 6853-6854]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-02506]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 13629-002]


Coleman Hydro, LLC; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental 
Assessment

    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for an original license 
to construct the Coleman Hydroelectric Project, located

[[Page 6854]]

on Little Timber Creek near the Town of Leadore, in Lemhi County, 
Idaho, and has prepared a final Environmental Assessment (EA) for the 
project. The project would not occupy any federal lands.
    The final EA includes staff's analysis of the potential 
environmental impacts of the project and concludes that licensing the 
project, with appropriate environmental protective measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action that would significantly affect the 
quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is available for review at the Commission in 
the Public Reference Room or may be viewed on the Commission's Web site 
at www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' link. Enter the docket number 
excluding the last three digits in the docket number field to access 
the document. For assistance, contact FERC Online Support at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#71373423323e1f1d181f14220401011e030531171403125f161e07"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02444750414d6c6e6b6c67517772726d707642646770612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a>, or toll-free at 1-866-208-3676, or for TTY, 
(202) 502-8659.
    You may also register online at www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp to be notified via email of new filings and issuances 
related to this or other pending projects. For assistance, contact FERC 
Online Support.
    For further information, contact Jim Hastreiter at (503) 552-2760.

    Dated: February 3, 2016.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-02506 Filed 2-8-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
Exhibit 23.1


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statement (Form
S-8 No. 333-13719) pertaining to the American Disposal Services, Inc. 1996 Stock
Option Plan of our report dated February 26, 1997, except as to Note 5 for which
the date is March 21, 1997, and as to Note 10 for which the date is March 25,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of American Disposal
Services, Inc. included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K/A) for the year ended
December 31, 1996.

Chicago, Illinois
June 16, 1997
Exhibit 4.2


 


CONSENT LETTER


 


Date: November 21, 2022


	To:	The Board of Directors
	 	Futu Holdings Limited
	 	PO Box 309
	 	Ugland House
	 	Grand Cayman KY1-1104
	 	Cayman Islands




 


We, the undersigned, hereby irrevocably consent that:


 


	1.	the voting rights attached to each Class B ordinary shares of Futu Holdings Limited (the “Company”)
standing in our names (as set out in the table below) shall be modified from 20 votes to ten votes pursuant to Rule 8A.10 of The Rules
Governing the Listing of Securities on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong Limited (the “Listing Rules”), effective upon
the dual primary listing (the “Listing”) of Class A ordinary shares of the Company on The Stock Exchange of Hong Kong
Limited (the “SEHK”) by way of introduction become unconditional and immediately prior to the dealing of Class A ordinary
shares of the Company on the SEHK commences (the “Modification of Voting Rights”).



 


	Name of Shareholders	 	Number of Class B ordinary shares held	 
	Lera Ultimate Limited	 	 	252,812,500	 
	Lera Infinity Limited	 	 	36,937,500	 




 


	 	Accordingly, following the Modification of Voting Rights taking effect, each Class B
                                                   ordinary shares of the Company entitles its holder to exercise ten votes, on all matters that require a shareholder’s vote,
                                                   subject to Rule 8A.24 of the Listing Rules that requires a limited number of reserved matters (the “Reserved
                                                   Matters”) to be voted on a one vote per share basis as set out below (save for the specified exception for the compliance
                                                   of Rule 8A.24 of the Listing Rules).



 


	 	The Reserved Matters are:



 


		(i)	any amendment to the Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association, including the variation of
the rights attached to any class of shares;



 


		(ii)	the appointment, election or removal of any independent non-executive director of
the Company;



 


		(iii)	the appointment or removal of the Company’s auditors; and



 


		(iv)	the voluntary liquidation or winding-up of the Company.



 


	2.	The Company may amend its Memorandum of Association or Articles of Association to
give effect to the Modification of Voting Rights.



 


This letter is governed by the laws of Hong Kong.


 






     


     


    

 


	/s/
Leaf Hua Li	 
	Name:
Leaf Hua Li	 
	Title:
Executive Director (Chairman) and Chief Executive Officer




 






     


     


    

 


	For and on behalf of 	 
	Lera Infinity Limited	 
	 	 
	/s/ Leaf Hua Li	 
	Name: Leaf Hua Li	 
	Title:	 




 






     


     


    

 





	For and on behalf of 	 
	Lera Ultimate Limited	 
	 	 
	/s/ Leaf Hua Li	 
	Name: Leaf Hua Li	 
	Title:
EXHIBIT 99.2

                            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 on Form 10-Q of Integrated Information
Systems, Inc., a Delaware corporation (the "Company"), for the quarterly period
ended March 31, 2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on
the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Donald H. Megrath, Senior Vice President and
Chief Financial Officeof 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 (15 U.S.C. Section
            78m(a) or 78o(d)); and

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

INTEGRATED INFORMATION SYSTEMS, INC.

/s/ Donald H. Megrath
------------------------------------
Donald H. Megrath
Senior Vice President,
Chief Financial Officer

Date: May 15, 2003
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 16, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 7884]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-03218]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice: 9446]


Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition 
Determinations: ``Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt'' 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 ``Pharaoh: King of Ancient Egypt,'' imported 
from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of 
cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan 
agreement with the foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that 
the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Cleveland 
Museum of Art, Cleveland, Ohio, from on or about March 13, 2016, until 
on or about June 12, 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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#4a392f293e232524787e7f730a393e2b3e2f642d253c"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6a190f091e030504585e5f532a191e0b1e0f440d051c">[email protected]</span></a>). The 
mailing address is U.S. Department of State, L/PD, SA-5, Suite 5H03, 
Washington, DC 20522-0505.

    Dated: February 9, 2016.
Mark Taplin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Bureau of Educational and 
Cultural Affairs, Department of State.
[FR Doc. 2016-03218 Filed 2-12-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4710-05-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
NOTE: This orderis nonprecedential. 

# muiteb**~tate%** 

# «ourtof§ppeaI% for tbejf 

# eberaI «ircuit

DURAMED PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., 

### Plaintiff-Appellant,


### v. WATSONLABORATORIES, INC., 

### Defendant-Appellee.

2011-1438 Appeal from the United States District Court for the District ofNevada in case no. 08-CV-0116, Judge Larry R. Hicks.

ON MOTION
Before LOURIE, LINN, ANDDYK, 

### Circuit Judges. LOURIE, 

### Circuit Judge. ORDER Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Duramed) submits a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent Watson Laboratories, Inc. (Watson) from launching a generic version of its patented drug, pending disposition of itsDURAMEDPHARMA v. WATSONLABS 2 appeal, and seeks an expeditedbriefing schedule. Watson opposes. Duramed replies. Rule 8(a)(1)(C)(2) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure authorizes this court to grant an injunction pending appeaL Similarto a motion to stay ajudgment or injunction pending appeal, which is authorized under this same rule, our determination is governed by four factors, the first two of which are the most critical: (1) whether the movant has made a strong showing of likelihood of success on the merits; (2) whether the movant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies. 

### Hilton v. Braunskill, 481 U.s. 770, 776 (1987). Without prejudicing the ultimate disposition of this case by a merits panel, we conclude based upon the papers submitted that Duramed has not established that it is entitled to the extraordinary relief of a •temporary injunctionpendingthis appeaL Accordingly, IT Is ORDERED THAT: (1) The motionfor a temporaryinjunctionis denied. (2) The motion for expedited briefing is granted. Duramed's opening brief shall be filed within seven days ofthe issuance ofthis order. Watson's brief shall be due fourteen days after the filing ofDuramed's opening brief. Duramed's reply briefand thejoint appendix shall be due seven days afterthe filing ofWatson's brief.3 DURAMEDPHARMA V. WATSONLABS


## JUL 

## 272011 Date

cc: VernonM. Winters, Esq. MarkT. Jansen, Esq. s23 FOR THE COURT

lsI

### Jan Horbaly Jan Horbaly Clerk

I.S.

## couJ~~~~P£ALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

## JUL 272011

JANHORBAlY ClEAK
#### WESLEY COLLIER v. K. J. HANES.

(Filed 12 April, 1933.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Staclc, J.,*at September Term, 1932, of Forsyth.

Affirmed.

*Williams & Bright for plaintiff.*

*A. B. Cummings and Efird & Liipfert for defendant.*

Per Cueiam.

The plaintiff instituted this action to recover an amount alleged to be due for merchandise sold by the plaintiff to the defendant. The defendant denied liability and the jury answered the issue of indebtedness against the plaintiff, who appealed on error assigned in the charge of the court. We do not think the instructions given the jury are subject to the criticism that the plaintiff was denied the right of recovery in a sum less than that prayed for in the complaint. In fact, however, the plaintiff seems to have conducted his case on the theory that the contract was entire. The charge complies with Consolidated Statutes 564.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 30 (Tuesday, February 14, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 8305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-3269]



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



DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
32 CFR Part 553


Army National Cemeteries

AGENCY: Department of the Army, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: This action adopts as final an interim rule which was 
published in the Federal Register (59 FR 60559) 25 November 1994. In 
accordance with Section 1176 of the National Defense Authorization Act 
for Fiscal Year 1994, Pub. L. 103-160, the Department of the Army 
amended the regulations governing eligibility for interment in 
Arlington National Cemetery to include former prisoners of war (POWs).

DATES: This final rule is effective February 14, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery, Arlington, 
Virginia 22211-5003.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
John C. Metzler, Jr., Superintendent, Arlington National Cemetery, 
(703) 695-3175.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 32 CFR Part 553 changed in accordance with 
Section 1176 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
1994, Pub. L. 103-160. That section extended eligibility for interment 
in Arlington National Cemetery to any former prisoner of war who, while 
a prisoner of war, served honorably in the active military, naval, or 
air service and who dies on or after the date of enactment of the 1994 
Authorization Act (November 30, 1993).

    This final rule governs eligibility for interment in Arlington 
National Cemetery, an Army national cemetery which is under the 
jurisdiction of the Department of the Army. Because this final rule 
pertains to a military function of the Department of the Army, the 
provisions of Executive Order 12866 do not apply. It is hereby 
certified that this final rule will not have a significant impact on 
small business or governments in the area.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 553

    Cemeteries, National cemeteries.

    For the reasons set out in the preamble, the amendments to 32 CFR 
Part 553 published as an interim rule on November 25, 1994, (59 FR 
60559) are adopted as final with the following corrections:

PART 553--ARMY NATIONAL CEMETERIES

    1. In Sec. 553.15a, the section heading is corrected to read as 
follows:


Sec. 553.15a  Persons eligible for inurnment of cremated remains in 
Columbarium in Arlington National Cemetery.

* * * * *


Sec. 553.15a  [Amended]

    2. In paragraph (e)(2) of Sec. 553.15a, the words ``active, 
military, naval, or air service'' are corrected to read ``active 
military, naval, or airservice''.
Kenneth L. Denton,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 95-3269 Filed 2-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Exhibit 21.1

The following is a list of all subsidiaries of the registrant. The names of
particular subsidiaries have been omitted since such unnamed subsidiaries,
considered in the aggregate as a single subsidiary, would not constitute a
significant subsidiary as of the end of the year covered by this report as
permitted by Item 601(b)(21) of Regulation S-K promulgated under the Securities
Act of 1933, as amended and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended.

Name                                                Jurisdiction of Organization
----                                                ----------------------------
Enhance Investment Corporation ...................           Delaware
Van-American Companies, Inc.......................           Delaware
Singer Asset Finance Company, L.L.C. .............           Delaware
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           2,763
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                   23,052
<ALLOWANCES>                                     1,326
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                28,510
<PP&E>                                         174,340
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 373,024
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           27,789
<BONDS>                                         20,788
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           193
<OTHER-SE>                                     297,182
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   373,024
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               121,363
<CGS>                                           65,947
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  104,743
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               6,223
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 10,872
<INCOME-TAX>                                     3,531
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              7,341
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     7,341
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.56
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.53


</TABLE>
#### MADELINE FURLOUGH, Administratrix, v. NASH COUNTY HIGHWAY COMMISSION and NELLO L. TEER.

(Filed 10 October, 1928.)

Appeal and Error — Petitions to Rehear.

Extraneous petitions to rehear filed by. laymen who are not parties have no proper place in a petition to the Supreme Court to rehear a case.

Petition to rehear. See 195 N. C., 365-.

Per Curiam.

Following the precedent recognized in *Cooper v. Board of Commissioners of Franklin County,*184 N. C., 615, 113 S. E., 569, the *Justices*to whom the petition was referred submitted the same to the Court in conference.

*161Tbe testimony was conflicting upon the question as to whether or not the road had been finished at the time of the injury sustained by plaintiff’s intestate. There was testimony to the effect that the road had never been finished and that the engineers had no authority to accept the road. Indeed witness Cornwell testified without objection: “Mr. Teer had the road in charge at the time.” The record discloses that the defendant made out a very strong case and the jury would have been fully and amply justified in finding the issues in his favor, but there was a conflict in the testimony, and under our system of jurisprudence, if there is any competent evidence upon an issue the weight of it is for the jury to determine.

There was also testimony to the effect that the pipe placed at the curve by the agent of the defendant gave the curve a deceptive appearance. If so, this was evidence of an independent act of negligence.

The defendant relies upon the case of *Overman v. Casualty Co.,*193 N. C., 86, 136 S. E., 250, which was not called to the attention of the court at the former hearing. The question at issue in that case was whether or not the cause of action for material furnished a contractor was barred by the statute of limitations. It does not appear to us that the *Overman cam*is in point. In the case at bar the liability of the defendant for negligence subsisted as long as he had the road in charge, and there was evidence tending to show that the road had not been completed at the time of the injury complained of.

In the petition to rehear there were certain extraneous petitions filed by outsiders not parties to the action and not attorneys at law. They were doubtless filed in good faith, but they have no place in the petition to rehear.

The petition to rehear has been given careful and diligent study and deliberation, and we find no sound reason for modifying or reversing the former opinion.

Petition denied.