alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 50 (Wednesday, March 15, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13978]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6408]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
[FRL-5173-1]


Environmental Statistics Subcommittee of the National Advisory 
Council for Policy and Technology; Public Meeting

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Notice of Public Meeting.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act, Public Law 92-
463, notice is hereby given that the Environmental Statistics 
Subcommittee (of the Environmental Information and Assessment 
Committee) of the National Advisory Council for Environmental Policy 
and Technology (NACEPT) will hold a one and one-half day meeting of the 
full Subcommittee.
    The Environmental Statistics Subcommittee was formed to provide key 
recommendations and strategic advice on the statistical products and 
activities necessary to enhance the Agency's knowledge about 
environmental statistics and trends, and to explore information gaps 
from the perspective of the users/producers of these data products. The 
meeting is being held to discuss and offer critical advice on an 
information policy initiative, 305b reports, and the role, functions, 
and information needs of a Federal statistical agency.
    Scheduling constraints preclude oral comments from the public 
during the meeting. Written comments can be submitted by mail, and will 
be transmitted to Committee members for consideration.

DATES: The public meeting will be held on April 3, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. 
to 5:00 p.m. and April 4, 1995 from 9:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. The meetings 
will be held at the Hall of States, 444 North Capitol Street, NW., 
Rooms 383-385, Washington, DC 20011. The hall telephone number is (202) 
624-5490. This meeting is open to the public. Due to the limited space, 
seating at the meeting will be on a first-come basis.

Addresses: Written comments should be sent to: James Morant, Chief, 
National Environmental Statistics Branch, Environmental Statistics and 
Information Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Mail Code 
2163, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460.

for further information contract: James Morant, Designated Federal 
Official, Direct Line (202) 260-2266, General Line (202) 260-2680, Fax 
(202) 260-4968.


    Dated: March 3, 1995.
James Morant,
Designated Federal Official.
[FR Doc. 95-6408 Filed 3-14-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-M
---

Exhibit 32.1




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002




I, Sandeep Vij, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three months ended March 31, 2011 (the “Form 10-Q”), to which this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the Form 10-Q.




Date: May 9, 2011
By:
/s/ SANDEEP VIJ

Sandeep Vij

President and Chief Executive Officer,

MIPS Technologies, Inc.


































A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
#### EDNA M. COOK v. J. PORTER STEDMAN.

(Filed 15 June, 1936.)

Automobiles E a—

In order for tbe owner of an automobile to be beld liable for injury-inflicted by a person to whom be bad loaned tbe car, tbe injured person must show, in addition to the fact of ownership, that tbe person to whom tbe car was loaned was reckless and incompetent, and that tbe owner bad knowledge of this fact.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Clement, J.,*at February Term, 1936, of E oesyth.

Affirmed.

Action for damages for personal injury, alleged to have been caused by tbe negligence of tbe defendant in tbe operation of bis automobile by an incompetent driver to whom it bad been loaned.

At tbe conclusion of tbe plaintiff’s evidence, motion for judgment of nonsuit was sustained, and from judgment in accordance with this ruling, plaintiff appealed.

*E. E. Bisner, John C. Wallace, and Parrish ■& Deal for plaintiff.*

*Hutchins & Parker for defendant.*

*346Per Curiam.

The only ground upon which plaintiff seeks to impose liability upon the defendant, the owner of the automobile, is the incompetency of the driver to whom it was loaned.

It is well settled that liability does not arise from mere ownership of an automobile, nor can it be based solely on the danger of the machine. The burden was on the plaintiff to show, in addition to the fact of ownership, that the car was loaned to a reckless and incompetent driver, and that the incompetency of the driver was known to the owner. Huddy on Automobiles, 795-797, 838; *Taylor v. Caudle, ante,*60; *Linville v. Nissen,*162 N. C., 95.

The only pertinent evidence offered by the plaintiff on this point was: (1) The admission in the answer that the automobile “bad been loaned to Lybrook” (the driver) ; (2) the statement by the defendant that “be bad asked bis wife not to let the boy have the car. He didn’t say why”; (3) the testimony of witness Orrell, a resident of Davie County: “His general reputation as driver of automobiles is reckless, careless, and dangerous. . . . He bad the general reputation I stated, ever since be has been in Davie County, ever since 1927, since bis father moved over there to Davie County.” The defendant and bis wife live in Forsyth County, in the city of 'Winston-Salem. There was no evidence of any instance of recklessness or incompetency on the part of Lybrook.

We conclude that the evidence offered is insufficient to impose liability on the defendant, the owner of the automobile, for the negligence of the driver in its operation on the occasion alleged.

Judgment of nonsuit is

Affirmed.
Exhibit 23.01

KPMG Peat Marwick
74 North Pearl Street
Albany, New York 12207

CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS

The Board of Directors
ALBANK Financial Corporation:

We consent to the incorporation by reference in the 
following Registration Statements:

  No.  33-46977 on Form S-8,
  No.  33-57674 on Form S-8,
  No.  33-57672 on Form S-8,
  No. 333-00016 on Form S-8,
  No. 333-00082 on Form S-8, and
  No. 333-00084 on Form S-8

of our report dated January 31, 1997, relating 
to the consolidated statements of financial 
condition of ALBANK Financial Corporation and 
subsidiary as of December 31, 1996 and 
1995, and the related consolidated statements 
of earnings, changes in stockholders' equity 
and cash flows for each of the years in the 
three-year period ended December 31, 1996, 
which report appears in the December 31, 1996 
annual report on Form 10-K of ALBANK 
Financial Corporation.

Albany, New York
March 27, 1997
Exhibit 31.2



Certification



I, William L. Hodges, certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of POZEN Inc.; and
|-- | ---------------------------------------------------------------------



|2. | Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



|                      |  |  |  |                        
|--------------------- |  |  |  | -----------------------
|                      |  | 
|Date: November , 2004 |  |  |  | /s/ William L. Hodges  
|                      |  |  |  | William L. Hodges      
|                      |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
SALISBURY BANCORP, INC.
Form 10-Q

Exhibit 32

                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 Salisbury Bancorp, Inc. (the
"Company") on Form 10-Q for the period ending  September 30, 2009, as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Richard J. Cantele,  Jr.,  President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company,
and I, B. Ian McMahon, Chief Financial 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 result of
                  operations of the Company.

by   /s/ Richard J. Cantele, Jr.                by  /s/  B. Ian McMahon
     ---------------------------                    -------------------
         Richard J. Cantele, Jr.                         B. Ian McMahon
         President and Chief Executive Officer           Chief Financial Officer


                                       36
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 19, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-11547

Auto Meter Products, Inc:

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
#### EFFIE ELLIOTT, ED ELLIOTT and PARTHENIA ELLIOTT v. JULIA ANN McCALL GOSS, Administratrix of SAM McCALL, deceased, and individually; MAGGIE McCALL BALDWIN, GEORGIANNA McCALL ALLSBROOK and HENRY McCALL and R. S. BOGER and wife, LOUANNA BOGER.

(Filed 19 April, 1961.)

1. Pleadings § 15—

A demurrer based upon matters *dehors*tbe pleadings is a “speaking” demurrer and will not be considered.

2. Appeal and Error § 34—

An instrument wbieb does not appear in tbe record on appeal will not be considered.

*5093. Appeal and Error § 41—

Where only evidence objected to appears in the record, and the charge of the court is not included in the record, admission of the evidence will not he held prejudicial, it being impossible to determine from the record whether the admission of the evidence was error, or, if so, whether its admission was harmful.

Appeal by defendants from *Crissman, J.,*September 1960 Term of MOORE.

This is an action for land.

There was verdict for plaintiffs. Judgment was entered declaring plaintiffs the owners and entitled to the possession of the land in controversy.

Defendants (other than R. S. Boger and wife) appealed.

*Barrett and Wilson and Johnson and Johnson for plaintiffs.*

*E. J. Burns for defendant appellants.*

PER Cueiam.

This case was here at a prior term. *Elliott v. Goss,*250 N.C. 185, 108 S.E. 2d 475. The decision of this Court on the former appeal sustained a demurrer to the complaint but permitted plaintiffs to amend.

Plaintiffs filed an amended complaint. Defendants demurred on the ground that the amended complaint does not state a cause of action. The trial court overruled the demurrer. In this we find no error. The complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action in ejectment and to quiet title. Furthermore, the argument of defendants in support of demurrer has no validity unless matters *dehors*the complaint are considered. In reality defendants convert their pleading into a speaking demurrer. In this aspect, the demurrer may not be sustained in any event — a speaking demurrer may not be considered. *Lamm v. Crumpler,*240 N.C. 35, 43, 81 S.E. 2d 138.

After this case had been argued here, counsel mailed a copy of the instrument defendants desire the Court to consider. It is not a part of the record and this Court will not go outside the record. Even so, we find nothing therein which would, if considered, change the results.

Defendants assign as error the admission in evidence of certain testimony and a purported deed. The evidence adduced at the trial, other than that referred to in the assignment of error, and the charge of the court are not a part of the record. It is therefore impossible for this Court to determine whether or not the particular evidence excepted to was prejudicial to defendants. Considering it out of context, it appears to have been properly admitted. The assignment of error is not sustained.

*510The issues submitted to the jury are sufficient to determine the issues of fact raised by the pleadings.

The costs will be paid by defendants (other than R. S. Boger and wife).

In the trial of the case we find

No error.
##### 



Exhibit 31.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
SECTION 302 (a) OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT I, Phillip J. Smith, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K of Stater Bros. Holdings Inc.; 2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of
a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the
statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were
made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this report; 3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this report, fairly present in all material respects
the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant
as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 4. The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for
establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in
Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:  a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such
disclosure controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision,
to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including
its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those
entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being
prepared;b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the
effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of
the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; andc)
    
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting that occurred during the registrants fourth
fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrants internal control over financial
reporting; and 5. The registrants other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our
most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the
registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of
directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):  a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or
operation of internal control over financial reporting which are
reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrants ability to record,
process, summarize and report financial information; andb)
    
    Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other
employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal control
over financial reporting. Date: December 21, 2004 /s/ Phillip J. SmithPhillip J. SmithSenior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer(Principal Financial Officer)
#### RAY R. AMOS v. SOUTHERN RAILWAY COMPANY, ATLANTIC & YADKIN RAILWAY COMPANY and NORFOLK & WESTERN RAILWAY COMPANY.

(Filed 6 January, 1953.)

Appeal and Error § 50 *%*—

Where the identical question sought to be presented by the appeal is pending before the Supreme Court of the United States and its decision thereon will be binding upon our Court, the cause will be retained.

Appeal by plaintiff from *Patton, Special Judge,*October Term, 1952, of Fobsyth.

This is an action to recover for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by the plaintiff on 16 April, 1949, while in the employment of the defendants. The accident occurred in Stokes County, North Carolina.

On 14 December, 1951, the plaintiff instituted an action against the Southern Railway Company in the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis, Missouri, to recover for his alleged injuries under the provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act. The Southern Railway Company answered, denying that the plaintiff was its employee and pleaded a release theretofore given to the Atlantic & Yadkin Railway Company and the Norfolk & Western Railway Company. The action is still pending in the Missouri court. Thereafter, on 15 April, 1952, the plaintiff instituted this suit on the same cause of action in the Superior Court of Forsyth County, North Carolina, seeking to recover under the provisions of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act from the three defendants named herein.

The Southern Railway Company filed a petition in the cause in the Superior Court of Forsyth County, praying that the plaintiff be enjoined from further prosecuting the Missouri action. The court heard the matter, found the facts set out in the order, and permanently enjoined the plaintiff from any further prosecution of the Missouri suit. The plaintiff appealed from the order, assigning error.

*Elledge ■& Johnson for plaintiff, appellant.*

*Wornble, Carlyle, Martin & Sandridge for defendant, Southern Bail-way Company, appellee.*

Per Curiam.

The Supreme Court of the United States has granted a petition for writ of *ceriio.rari*in the case of *Atlantic Coast Line R. Co. v. Pope,*209 Ga. 187, 71 S.E. *2d*243, and the case is now calendared for argument in that Court. The case involves the identical question presented for decision on this appeal. And since we will be bound by the *765decision of the Supreme Court of the United States on the question, we are withholding disposition of this appeal until the Supreme Court of the United States renders its decision in the aboye case.

Cause retained.
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of

law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. This court generally disfavors the

citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under

the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.

** After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this three-judge panel has

determined unanimously that oral argument would not be of material assistance in the

determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is

therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

Filed 6/26/96

TENTH CIRCUIT

LAUREN HELLMAN,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

ROBERT L. HAYS, ETTA J. HAYS,

DAN D. STUART, PETER W. BOOTH,

REBECCA S. BROMLEY, TED

SHONTS, SHARON SHIPLEY, ARDIS

W. SCHMIDT, JOHN ANDERSON,

DOES I through XX,

Defendants-Appellees.

No. 95-1543

(D.C. No. 95-S-2072)

(D. Colo.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

Before SEYMOUR, Chief Judge, KELLY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.**

Mr. Hellman appeals from the district court’s dismissal of his complaint and action

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(d). The December 21, 1995, notice of appeal was timely

filed because the district court’s order of dismissal was not entered on the docket until
- 2 -

November 21, 1995. See I R. doc. 22 at 9; Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1). The district court did

not abuse its discretion in dismissing the action. See Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25

(1992).

AFFIRMED. All pending motions are DENIED. The mandate shall issue

forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Paul J. Kelly, Jr.

Circuit Judge
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 13, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1984

Westool Corporation:

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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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
Motion Granted ; Appeal D ismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed

September 27 , 2022

.

In The



## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

NO. 14

- 22

- 00364

- CR

TREASURE SMITH , Appellant

V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from Co unty Crim inal C our t at Law No

. 12

Ha rris County, Texas Trial Co urt Cause No. 2339436

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Appellant was convicted of assault of a fa mily member . Subsequently, the trial court granted appellant’s motion for new trial.
Generally, w e only have jurisdiction to consider an appeal by a criminal defendant when there has been a final judgment of conviction. See Workman v.
State , 170 Tex. Crim. App. 621, 343 S.W.2d 446, 447 (1961); McKown v. State
,2

915 S.W.2d 160, 161 (Tex. App.

– Fort Wor th 1996, no pet.). Because appellant
ha s been granted a new trial, there is no final conviction to appeal.

W e grant appellant ’ s motion to dismiss a nd dismiss th e appeal for want of jurisdiction

.

PER CURIAM

Panel consist s of Justices Spain, Poiss ant, and Wilson Do Not Publish

— Tex. R. App

. P. 47.2 (b)