alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 12550]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5468]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ES95-23-000]


MidAmerican Energy Company

March 1, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 23, 1995, MidAmerican Energy Company 
(MidAmerican), filed an application under Sec. 204 of the Federal Power 
Act seeking authorization to issue securities and assume obligation and 
liabilities in connection with the proposed merger of Iowa-Illinois Gas 
and Electric Company (Kowa-Illinois), Midwest Resources Inc. (Midwest 
Resources) and Midwest Power Systems Inc. (Midwest Power) with and into 
MidAmerican.
    MidAmerican proposes;
    <bullet> To issue up to 103,784,200 shares of its common stock for 
the conversion of Midwest Resources common stock and Iowa-Illinois 
common stock to MidAmerican common stock;
    <bullet> To issue up to an additional 6,000,000 shares of its 
common stock for MidAmerican's dividend reinvestment plan;
    <bullet> To issue up to 3,217,789 shares of its preferred stock for 
the conversion of Iowa-Illinois preference stock and Midwest Power 
preferred stock to MidAmerican preferred stock;
    <bullet> To assume all obligations and liabilities with respect to 
the existing securities of Iowa-Illinois, Midwest Resources and Midwest 
Power;
    <bullet> To assume the outstanding short-term debt limit of $250 
million previously granted by the Commission to Midwest Power in Docket 
No. ES93-35-000 and the new authorization sought by Midwest Power in 
its application filed with the Commission on February 23, 1995, in 
Docket No. ES95-22-000 for authorization to issue up to $250 million of 
promissory notes, pending the Commission's approval; and
    <bullet> To assume the outstanding short-term debt limit of $150 
million sought by Iowa-Illinois in Docket No. ES95-20-000 pending the 
Commission's approval.
    MidAmerican requests that the proposed issuance of securities and 
assumption of obligations and liabilities be exempted from the 
Commission's competitive bidding and negotiated placement requirements.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street NE., Washington, DC 
20426 in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). All such motions 
or protests should be filed on or before March 24, 1995. Protests will 
be considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action 
to be taken, but will not serve to make the protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a motion to 
intervene. Copies of this filing are on file with the Commission and 
are available for public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5468 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

380392/87(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*+7&$67,521



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 .*

,03257,1*7+,63$57)520&+,1$&2676

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE>        5
<MULTIPLIER>     1,000

<S>                                         <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                               12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                           JAN-29-2000
<PERIOD-START>                              JAN-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                JAN-29-2000
<CASH>                                           45,223
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                     1,146
<ALLOWANCES>                                          0
<INVENTORY>                                      55,323
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                109,604
<PP&E>                                          122,841
<DEPRECIATION>                                   59,539
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  180,338
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            48,506
<BONDS>                                           7,944
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                             14
<OTHER-SE>                                      117,743
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    180,338
<SALES>                                         382,631
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                382,631
<CGS>                                           282,754
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   282,754
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 77,778
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               (1,688)
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  23,787
<INCOME-TAX>                                      7,638
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              16,149
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                       0
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                     16,149
<EPS-BASIC>                                       $1.23
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     $1.17





</TABLE>
#### Volkan Turksoy, Appellant, v Suat Acar, Respondent.

[772 NYS2d 831]

In an action pursuant to CPLR article 53 to enforce a judgment of a foreign country, brought by motion for summary judgment in lieu of complaint pursuant to CPLR 3213, the plaintiff appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County (Kitson, J.), dated October 31, 2002, which denied his motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss the action pursuant to CPLR 327.

Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

The Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion in granting the defendant’s cross motion to dismiss this action on the ground of forum non conveniens *(see Islamic Republic of*
      *590
      *Iran v Pahlavi,*62 NY2d 474 [1984], *cert denied*469 US 1108 [1985]; *Halberthal v Halberthal,*263 AD2d 465 [1999]).

In light of the foregoing, we pass upon no other issue. Altman, J.P., Smith, H. Miller and Mastro, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<LEGEND>
         This Schedule contains summary financial information extracted from the
Company's  Condensed  Consolidated  Balance  Sheet  at  June  30,  1998  and the
Company's  Condensed  Consolidated  Statement of  Operations  for the Six Months
Ending June 30, 1998 and is  qualified  in its  entirety  by  reference  to such
financial statement.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                                 APR-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                                   JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                         423
<SECURITIES>                                   0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  30,581
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    9,540
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               41,371
<PP&E>                                         30,781
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (13,164)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 59,188
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          7,538
<BONDS>                                        10,096
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       168
<OTHER-SE>                                     40,931
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   59,188
<SALES>                                        31,993
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               31,993
<CGS>                                          22,343
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  22,343
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               3,734
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             462
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                5,454
<INCOME-TAX>                                   2,072
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            3,382
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   3,382
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                  .57
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  .56
        


</TABLE>
Court of Appeals of the State of Georgia

Clerk's Office, Atlanta, August 10, 2022.

I certify that the above is a true extract from the minutes 

of the Court of Appeals of Georgia.

Witness my signature and the seal of said court hereto 

affixed the day and year last above written.

, Clerk.

Court of Appeals 

of the State of Georgia

ATLANTA, August 10, 2022

The Court of Appeals hereby passes the following order

A22D0461. ALAN ROBINSON v. CACH, LLC.

Upon consideration of the Application for Discretionary Appeal, it is ordered that it be 

hereby DENIED.

LC NUMBERS:

16A58409
Exhibit 31.2
                      RUL 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a) CERTIFICATION

I, John F. Foley, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Salisbury Bancorp,
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;

      c)    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; and

      c)    disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's internal
            control over financial reporting that occurred during the
            registrant's most recent 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 function):

      a)    all significant deficiencies and material weakness 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; and

      b)    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: November 12, 2003

By:   /s/ John F. Foley
      -----------------
      Chief Financial Officer


                                       22
Exhibit 32.2

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 Annual Report on Form 10-K of Da-Lite Screen Company, Inc. (the Company) for the period ending December 26, 2008
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Jerry C. Young, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to and for purposes of 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to
§906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

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



/s/ Jerry C. YoungJerry C. YoungChief Financial OfficerFebruary 24, 2009




69
## U NITED 

## S TATES 

## N AVY



## – M ARINE 

## C ORPS 

## C OURT OF 

## C RIMINAL 

## A PPEALS

_________________________ No

. 201 700143

_________________________ 

### UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Appellee

v. 

### AARON Z. BUCHANAN Sonar Technician (Surface) Seaman Recruit (E

- 1 ), U.S. Navy Appellant

______ ___________________ Appeal from the United States Navy

- Marine Corps Trial Judiciary

Military Judge: Captain Paul C. LeBlanc, JAGC, USN

. Convening Authority: C ommanding Officer, Training Support Center, San Diego, CA

. Staff Judge Advocate’s Recommendation: Lieutenant Stacy E. Saxon, JAGC, USN

. For Appellant : C aptain Kimberly D. Hinson, JAGC, USN

.

For Appellee: Brian K. Keller, Esq.

_________________________ Decided 15 A ugust 2017

_________________________ Before H UTCHISON , F ULTON , and E LLINGTON , Appellate M ilitary Judges

_________________________ After careful consideration of the record, submitted without assignment of error, we affirm the findings and sentence as approved by the convening authority. Art. 66(c), Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. § 866(c).

For the Court

R.H. TROIDL Clerk of Court
#### STATE v. WALLACE M. PEGELOW, JR.

(Filed 27 November, 1957)

Appeal by defendant from *Olive, J.,*March Criminal Term 1957 of Guilford, Greensboro Division.

Criminal prosecution upon a bill of indictment charging the defendant with the commission of a crime against nature: a violation of G.S. 14-177.

Defendant entered a plea of Not Guilty. The jury returned a verdict of Guilty.

From a judgment of imprisonment the defendant appeals.

*George B. Patton, Attorney General, and Ralph Moody, Assistant Attorney General for the State.*

*William É. Comer for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The evidence offered by the State — the defendant offered none — is amply sufficient to carry the case to the jury. There is no need to soil the pages of our Reports with a recital of its sordid details. Indeed, the defendant makes no contention that the State should have been nonsuited.

Defendant’s assignments of error as to the evidence and as to the charge of the court to the jury have been considered, and none are sufficient to justify a new trial.

In the bill of indictment the defendant’s name is stated as Wallace Pegelow. The record is captioned *S. v. Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr.*The defendant’s brief is captioned *S. v. Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr.*At the May Term 1957 of the Superior Court of Guilford County the defendant by his counsel of record here, Mr. William E. Comer, made a motion for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence, which the court denied for the reason that the case was pending in the Supreme Court on appeal, and therefore the Superior Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the motion. In this motion for a new trial, which was verified by the defendant, and signed by his attorney here, Mr. William E. Comer, the defendant’s name is given as Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr. It is plain that Wallace Pegelow is the same person as Wallace M. Pegelow, Jr.

No error.
----

|                                                                                                                                                                                                     | Exhibit      32 |
|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|-----------------|
|                                                                                                                                                                                                     |
|  Certification      of Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer Pursuant to 18      U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002  |

| 1)     | The      Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Operating Partnership for the period      ended March 31, 2008 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements      of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m);      and |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                    |
| 2)     | The      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the      Operating Partnership.                                                                       |

|   |    / S / Robert      J.      Attea                          Robert      J. AtteaChairman      of the BoardChief      Executive Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of      the Operating Partnership |
|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |      / S / David      L.      Rogers                        David      L. RogersChief      Financial Officer of Sovran Holdings, Inc., the Sole General Partner of      the Operating Partnership                           |

----
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

December 28, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2750

Faurecia US Holdings:

I am pleased to notify you that the United States Trade Representative has determined to 

grant the above-referenced exclusion request submitted pursuant to the notice published at 83 FR 

32181 (‘July 11 notice’). The exclusion determination is set out in a formal notice which has 

been submitted to Office of the Federal Register for publication (‘the exclusion notice’). A prepublication version of the exclusion notice has been posted on the USTR website, at 

https://ustr.gov/sites/default/files/enforcement/301Investigations/12.21.18_Notice_of_Product_E

xclusions.pdf.

The scope of the exclusion is governed by the formal HTSUS language in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice, and not by the product descriptions set out in any particular request 

for exclusion. An exclusion in response to your request has been granted by excluding from the 

additional tariffs the 10-digit HTSUS subheading under which your request was filed. 

In accordance with the July 11 notice, the exclusion applies as of the July 6, 2018 

effective date of the tariff action, and will extend for one year after the exclusion notice is 

published in the Federal Register. As stated in the exclusion notice, U.S. Customs and Border 

Protection will issue additional instructions on entry guidance and implementation.

Sincerely,

Stephen P. Vaughn

General Counsel
#### F. K. WATKINS v. MAUDE S. JONES, P. FORREST JONES and WINGATE R. JONES.

(Filed 15 January, 1954.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Hatch, Special Judge,*April Term, 1953, of Dtjeiiam.

Civil action to recover commissions alleged to be due tbe plaintiff pursuant to tbe terms of an oral agreement for tbe sale of certain real estate owned by tbe defendants and situate on tbe west side of Orange Street in tbe City of Durham.

Tbe plaintiff alleged in bis complaint tbat tbe property was listed with bim for sale in November, 1950, and tbat be made tbe contacts wbieb eventually resulted in its sale.

Tbe defendants denied in tbeir answer tbat tbey bad any contract with tbe plaintiff with respect to tbe sale of tbeir Orange Street property, and alleged tbat tbey sold the property themselves without the intervention or assistance of the plaintiff.

Tbe evidence was' in sharp conflict on the question as to whether tbe plaintiff and tbe defendants bad entered into a contract for tbe sale of property.

Tbe issue wbieb was determinative of this question was answered by tbe jury in favor of the defendants, tbat is, tbat tbe defendants bad not entered into a contract with tbe plaintiff for tbe sale of tbeir property as alleged in tbe complaint. Judgment was entered accordingly and tbe plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*J. Grover Lee for appellant.*

*Victor S. Bryant and Victor S. Bryant, Jr., for appellees.*

Per Curiam.

Due and careful consideration has been given to each assignment of error presented by tbe appellant on this appeal, and we find no error in tbe trial below of sufficient merit to warrant a disturbance of tbe verdict rendered by tbe jury. ITence, we find

No error.
exh102.htm


EXHIBIT 10.2


 


RESIGNATION


 


I hereby resign as an officer and director of MEZABAY INTERNATIONAL, INC., a Nevada corporation, (the “Company”) effectively immediately.


 


I do not have any disagreements with the Company on any matter relating to the Company’s operations, policies or practices.


 


Dated this 29th day of June 2011.


 


 


                      TEY YONG QING


                      Tey Yong Qing