alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 14, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 13719]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6171]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER93-568-000]


Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.; Notice of Filing

March 8, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 27, 1995, Consolidated Edison Company 
of New York, Inc. tendered for filing an amendment in the above-
referenced docket.
    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 18 CFR 385.214). All such 
motions or protests should be filed on or before March 17, 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. 95-6171 Filed 3-13-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

AMENDMENT OF RULES 219(a) AND 502(b) OF THE
PENNSYLVANIA RULES OF
DISCIPLINARY ENFORCEMENT
AND RULE 1.15 OF THE RULES
OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: NO. 172

DISCIPLINARY RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 7 th day of February

, 2019, it is hereby ORDERED that Rules 219(a) and 502(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rule 1.15
of the Rules of Professional Conduct are amended in the attached form. These
amendments shall be effective for the 2019

- 20 annual at torney assessment and shall continue until further Order of this Court.

Pursuant to Rule 103 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration, the immediate amendment of Rules 219(a) and 502(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Disciplinary Enforcement and Rule 1.15 of the Rules of Professional Conduct is required
in the intere st of efficient administration.

This ORDER shall be processed in accordance with Rule 103(b) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Judicial Administration and shall be effective immediately.

Additions to the rule are shown in bold and are underline d

. Deletions from the rule are shown in bold and in brackets.
#### ROBERT S. BURLESON v. J. F. SNIPES, Trading as J. F. SNIPES MOTOR COMPANY, and C. I. T. CORPORATION.

(Filed 17 March, 1937.)

Removal of Causes § 4a — Complaint held to show separable controversy, and nonresident’s petition for removal was properly granted.

A complaint alleging that plaintiff purchaser gave the seller a title retaining contract, to which the certificate of title was attached, for balance due on the purchase price of the truck, that the contract was sold and assigned to a nonresident, who failed and refused to surrender the certificate of title upon the completion of the payment of the purchase price, *is held*to show a separable controversy, and the nonresident’s petition to remove was properly granted.

Appeal by plaintiff from judgment rendered by *Rousseau, J.,*15 January, 1937, Aveey County.

Affirmed.

Petition by defendant O. I. T. Corporation, a West Yirginia corporation, for removal of the cause of action as to it to the District Court of the United States for the Western District of North Carolina, on the ground of separable controversy involving more than three thousand dollars, heard upon appeal from the clerk, who had denied removal. Proper bond was filed.

The judge below reversed the ruling of the clerk, adjudging that petitioner was entitled to remove.

Plaintiff appealed.

*J. V. Bowers and Charles Hughes for plaintiff.*

*Harkins, Van Winkle & Walton for defendant.*

Pee Cueiam.

It has been uniformly held by this court that the right of removal of a cause from a state court to the United States Court on the ground of separable controversy must be determined by the facts set forth in the complaint. *Timber Co. v. Ins. Co.,*190 N. C., 801; *Hughes v. R. R.,*210 N. C., 730; *Rucker v. Snider Bros.,*210 N. C., 777. In the instant case the complaint alleges a cause of action against the resident defendant Snipes and the petitioner for damages for failure to surrender an automobile title certificate. The plaintiff alleges that this certificate had been attached to a title retention contract given by him to defendant Snipes to secure the balance due upon the purchase of a motor truck, and that the defendant Snipes sold and assigned said title retention contract, with the certificate attached, to the defendant C. I. T. Corporation; and that upon payment of the balance due on his debt to *397the O. I. T. Corporation the latter wrongfully failed and refused to surrender to the plaintiff the title certificate, causing substantial damage to him.

It is manifest that plaintiff has alleged as to the petitioner a cause of action independent and distinct from the resident defendant, and that the petitioner is entitled to have same removed to the United States Court. *Brown v. R. R.,*204 N. C., 25; *Crisp v. Fibre Co.,*193 N. C., 77; *Timber Co. v. Ins. Co., supra.*

The judgment below is

Affirmed.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 04-7457

GEORGE SAMUEL GREEN, JR.,

Petitioner - Appellant,

versus

GENE M. JOHNSON, Director of the Virginia

Department of Corrections,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern

District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Robert G. Doumar, Senior

District Judge. (CA-03-818)

Submitted: March 25, 2005 Decided: April 15, 2005

Before LUTTIG, WILLIAMS, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

George Samuel Green, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis,

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF VIRGINIA, Richmond, Virginia, for

Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

See Local Rule 36(c).
- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

George Samuel Green, Jr., seeks to appeal from the

district court’s order denying relief on his motion for

reconsideration of the district court’s final order adopting the

report and recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing

Green’s 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2000) petition. The order is not

appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate

of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (2000); see Reid v.

Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 370 (4th Cir. 2004). A certificate of

appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the

denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (2000).

A prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reasonable

jurists would find that his constitutional claims are debatable and

that any dispositive procedural rulings by the district court are

also debatable or wrong. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322,

336 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); Rose v.

Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683 (4th Cir. 2001). We have independently

reviewed the record and conclude that Green has not made the

requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of

appealability and dismiss the appeal. 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
#### STATE v. MRS. EDDIE WEBB.

(Filed 15 June, 1936.)

1. Criminal Daw I f—

Indictments charging defendant with reckless driving and with passing a standing school bus on the highway may be consolidated for trial. C. S., 4622.

2. Automobiles C g—

N. C. Code, 2618 (b), requiring motor vehicles to stop before passing a school bus standing on the highway applies to passing a school bus from either direction, from the rear or from the front.

Appeal by the defendant from *Hill, J.,*at May Term, 1935, of Eoesytii.

*AUorney-General Seawell and Assistant Attorneys-General McMullan and Bruton for the State:*

*H. 0. Woltz and Wilson Barber for defendant, appellant.*

Per Curiam.

The defendant was charged in two bills of indictment with having violated section 2621 (45), N. C. Code of 1935 (Michie), relative to reckless driving, and section 2618 (b) of said Code requiring motor vehicles to stop before passing a school bus standing on the public road taking on or putting off school children.

The defendant excepted to the consolidation of the two cases for trial. This exception is untenable. C. S., 4622.

Section 2618 (b) reads: “No person operating any motor vehicle on the public roads shall pass, or attempt to pass, any public school bus while the same is standing on the said public road taking on or putting off school children, without first bringing said motor vehicle to a full stop at a distance of not less than fifty feet from said school bus.”

The court charged the jury: .“Now, the defendant contends that the logical meaning of the statute is that it shall apply only to an automobile approaching the school bus from the rear and attempting to pass the rear of the school bus, and that it does not apply to traffic approaching the school bus from the opposite direction and passing or attempting to pass the school bus from that direction. The State contends, through the solicitor, that it means passing a school bus, regardless of whether from the rear of the school bus or from the front of the school bus. The court construes this statute to mean, and you are instructed that it is the law, that it applies both to passing or attempting to pass the school bus from the rear and passing or attempting to pass the school bus from the *351front of the school bus.” The defendant excepted to the foregoing portion of the charge, contending, as stated by the court, that the statute is limited to only those motor vehicles passing a school bus from the rear. We agree with the construction placed upon the statute by the court. There is nothing in the statute limiting the provisions thereof as contended by the defendant.

*We*have examined the other exceptions taken by the appellant and find no reversible error. While the evidence, as it related to the charge of violating section 2621 (45), was conflicting, it justified the verdict of the jury.

No error.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 37 (Friday, February 24, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 10405]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4569]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Mines


Information Collection Submitted to the Office of Management and 
Budget for Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

    A request extending the collection of information listed below has 
been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget for approval 
under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. Chapter 
35). Copies of the proposed collection of information and related forms 
and explanatory material may be obtained by contacting the Bureau's 
clearance officer at the phone number listed below. Comments and 
suggestions on the requirement should be made directly to the Bureau 
clearance officer and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork 
Reduction Project (1032-0112), Washington, D.C. 20503, telephone 202-
395-3470.

Title: Gas Well Data--Survey of Helium-Bearing Natural Gas
OMB approval number: 1032-0112
Abstract: Respondents supply information which will be used by the U.S. 
Bureau of Mines, Division of Helium Field Operations, to evaluate the 
helium resources of the United States. This evaluation helps assure a 
continued supply of the valuable natural resource to meet essential 
Government needs. Results of the gas analyses, along with the data 
supplied, are published to provide valuable information to industry and 
to the public when those data are released by the supplier.
Bureau form number: 6-1579-A
Frequency: Annually
Description of respondents: Owners and operators of helium-bearing 
natural gas wells and transmission lines.
Estimated completion time: 15 minutes
Annual responses: 200
Annual burden hours: 50
Bureau clearance officer: Alice J. Wissman (202) 501-9569.

    Dated: February 3, 1995.
Reah L. Graham,
Director, U.S. Bureau of Mines.
[FR Doc. 95-4569 Filed 2-23-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-53-M
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
 Crop Genetics Research: Stoneville, MS
 close



    Research

                    Research Projects
                                    Publications
                                    Collaborations
                                    News
                People

                    Staff Listing
                                    CareersSearch small
                    Search
            
            ARS Home
                                About ARS
                                Contact Us




ARS Home Southeast Area Stoneville, Mississippi Crop Genetics Research Research





- Gillen, Anne
- Cai, Guohong
- Plant Genetic Resources, Genomics and Genetic Improvement (301)
- Plant Diseases (303)
- Crop Production (305)

Research Project: **Location:
                            Crop Genetics Research** Project Number: 6066-21220-016-016-A
                        
                        Project Type: Cooperative Agreement Start Date: Oct 1, 2023
                        
                        End Date: Aug 31, 2024 **Objective:**
                        
                        Perform soybean cyst nematode screens on selected lines and cultivars submitted to the Uniform Soybean Tests - Northern Region.  Send results to ARS scientist. **Approach:**
                        
                        SCN greenhouse evaluation of selected lines and cultivars from the Northern Tests (<100 entries) against one population of soybean cyst nematode.


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
NO. 07-07-0376-CR

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SEVENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AT AMARILLO

PANEL C

NOVEMBER 28, 2007

______________________________

HEATH JAMES GRIMES,

Appellant

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS, 

Appellee

_________________________________

FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 2 OF RANDALL COUNTY;

NO. 2006-1659-L; HON. RONALD WALKER, JR., PRESIDING

_______________________________

ABATEMENT AND REMAND

__________________________________

Before QUINN, C.J., and HANCOCK and PIRTLE, JJ.

Heath James Grimes (appellant) appeals from his conviction for theft of property of

the value of $50 or more, but less than $500. He filed his notice of appeal on September

4, 2007. The reporter’s record was filed on September 20, 2007, and the clerk’s record on

October 10, 2007. Therefore, appellant’s brief was due on November 9, 2007. On

November 16, 2007, a letter was sent to appellant’s attorney notifying him the brief was
2

overdue and that the brief or response was due November 26, 2007. To date, no brief or

extension motion has been filed in this Court.

Consequently, we abate the appeal and remand the cause to the County Court at

Law No. 2 of Randall County (trial court) for further proceedings. Upon remand, the trial

court shall immediately cause notice of a hearing to be given and, thereafter, conduct a

hearing to determine the following:

1. whether appellant is indigent; 

2. whether appellant desires to prosecute the appeal; and

3. whether appellant has been denied the effective assistance of

counsel due to appellate counsel’s failure to timely file an appellate

brief. See Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387, 394, 105 S. Ct. 830, 834-35,

83 L. Ed.2d 821, 828 (1985) (holding that an indigent defendant is

entitled to the effective assistance of counsel on the first appeal as of

right and that counsel must be available to assist in preparing and

submitting an appellate brief).

We further direct the trial court to issue findings of fact and conclusions of law

addressing the foregoing subjects. Should the trial court find that appellant desires to

pursue the appeal, is indigent, and has been denied effective assistance of counsel, we

further direct it to appoint new counsel to assist in the prosecution of the appeal. The

name, address, phone number, telefax number, and state bar number of the new counsel,

if any, who will represent appellant on appeal must also be included in the court’s findings

of fact and conclusions of law. Furthermore, the trial court shall also cause to be

developed 1) a supplemental clerk’s record containing the findings of fact and conclusions

of law and 2) a reporter’s record transcribing the evidence and argument presented at the

aforementioned hearing. Additionally, the trial court shall cause the supplemental clerk’s

record to be filed with the clerk of this court on or before December 28, 2007. Should
3

additional time be needed to perform these tasks, the trial court may request same on or

before December 28, 2007.

It is so ordered.

Per Curiam

Do not publish.
exh103.htm




EXHIBIT 10.3


 


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.


 


 


                   THUM MAY YIN


                   Thum May Yin
## NUMBER 13

- 19

- 00462

- CV

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRIST I

– EDINBURG

IN RE FRAUD UL ENT HOSPITAL LIEN LITIGATION

On appeal from MDL No. 15

- 0360

- H in the 444 th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.



## MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Chief Justice Contreras and Justices Longoria and Perkes

Memorandum Opinion by Justice Perkes

Appellants Douglas Turek and Russ De V ore filed a joint notice of accelerated

interlocutory appeal on September 19, 2019, after the trial court denied their motion to

dismiss under the Texas Citizen s Participation Act. 1 See T EX

. C IV

. P RAC

. & R EM

. C ODE

A NN

. §§ 27.003, 51.014(12). The Court granted appellants two extensions of time to file

1 This case

, filed by appellee Martha Hernandez, originated in trial court cause number C

- 1621

- 15

- J in the 430 th District Court of Hidalgo County, but was transferred to MDL No. 15

- 0360

- H in the 444th District Court of Cameron County, Texas for consolidated pretrial proceedings. Th is appeal arises from MDL No. 15

- 0360

- H.their brief , extending their deadline until December 20, 2019.

On December 19, 2019, appellants filed an unopposed motion to abate the appeal

, citing a need to supplement the reporter’s record with missing exhibits. On January 3,

2020, the Court denied the ir motion to abate, pointing out that the “missing” exhibits were

located in Volume 2 of the sealed clerk’s record filed with this Court on October 4, 2019

. Also on January 3, 2020 , the Court provided appellants with a separate notice that their

brief was past due and warning that their appeal was subject to dismissal for want of

prosecution unless, within ten days, appellant s reasonably explain ed the ir failure to file a

timely brie f and appellee wa s not significantly injured by such failure

. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.8(a)(1). To date, appellants have not responded to the Court’s request and their brief

is now more than fort y days past due

. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed for wan t of prosecution. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P.

38.8(a)(1).

GREGORY T. PERKES J u stice

Delivered and filed the 30th day of January , 20 20

.
EXHIBIT 23.2



                     CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS



The undersigned hereby consents to the inclusion as an exhibit to this Annual
Report on Form 10-K for the year ended February 2, 2002 of our report dated
March 1, 2002, on our audits of the statements of net assets available for
benefits of the United Retail Group Retirement Savings Plan (the "Plan") as of
December 31, 2001 and 2000, and the related statements of changes in net
assets available for benefits for the years then ended.

The undersigned also hereby consents to the incorporation of such report by
reference in the Registration Statement on Form S-8 of United Retail Group,
Inc. (the "Company") with respect to the Plan and its investment in shares of
common stock of the Company.





                                                              /s/Ary & Roepcke


Columbus, Ohio
April 3, 2002
Exhibit 99.1





Certification by the Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer


Relating to a Periodic Report Containing Financial
Statements





---




I, John
R. Plachetka, Pharm.D., Chief Executive Officer, and I, Matthew E. Czajkowski, Chief Financial Officer, of POZEN Inc., a Delaware corporation (the Company), hereby certify that, to my knowledge:





(1)    The Companys periodic report on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2002 (the Form
10-Q) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and





(2)    The information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





*         *         *








CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/s/    JOHN R. PLACHETKA

/s/    MATTHEW E. CZAJKOWSKIJohn R. Plachetka, Pharm.D.

Matthew E. CzajkowskiDate:  November 13, 2002

Date:  November 13, 2002
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

For the Fifth Circuit

No. 99-31245

CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

VERSUS

OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO,

Local 4-447,

Defendant-Appellant

___________________________________________________________________

OIL, CHEMICAL AND ATOMIC WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION; ET AL.,

 Plaintiffs,

VERSUS

CHEVRON CHEMICAL COMPANY; Etc; ET AL.,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court

For the Eastern District of Louisiana

98-CV-2372-B

July 17, 2000
*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the Court has determined that this

opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under

the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

Before DAVIS, JONES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

The judgment of the district court is affirmed essentially for

the reasons stated in the district court’s November 4, 1999 Order

and Reasons. This case is controlled by International Union of

Operating Engineers, Local 351 v. Cooper Natural Resources, Inc.,

163 F.3d 916 (5th Cir. 1989).

AFFIRMED.