alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 40 (Wednesday, March 1, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 11079]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-4949]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
[Project No. 11163-000-ME]


Consolidated Hydro Maine, Inc.; Notice of Availability of Draft 
Environmental Assessment

February 23, 1995.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 
and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission's) 
Regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47897), the Office 
of Hydropower Licensing has reviewed the application for an original 
license for the South Berwick Hydroelectric Project, located on the 
Salmon Falls River in the towns of South Berwick, Maine, and 
Rollinsford, New Hampshire, and has prepared a Draft Environmental 
Assessment (DEA) for the project. In the DEA, the Commission's staff 
has analyzed the potential environmental impacts of the existing, 
unlicensed project and has concluded that approval of the project, with 
appropriate environmental protection or enhancement measures, would not 
constitute a major federal action significantly affecting the quality 
of the human environment.
    Copies of the DEA are available for review in the Public Reference 
Branch, Room 3104, of the Commission's offices at 941 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    Any comments should be filed within 45 days from the date of this 
notice and should be addressed to Lois D. Cashell, Secretary, Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., 
Washington, DC 20426. Please affix ``South Berwick Hydroelectric 
Project No. 11163'' to all comments. For further information, please 
contact John Blair at (202) 219-2845.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-4949 Filed 2-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                          82,800
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                       4,577,500
<DEPRECIATION>                                 664,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               5,121,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          279,700
<BONDS>                                      2,050,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                   2,792,100
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 5,121,700
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               942,200
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               736,900
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             227,700
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (22,400)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.12)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.12)


</TABLE>
Appeal Dismissed and Memorandum Opinion filed September 18, 2018 .

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals NO. 14- 18 -00681- CV NO. 14- 18 -00682- CV IN THE INTEREST OF M. E. H. On Appeal from the 345th District Court

Travis County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. D-1- AG - 15 -002375 M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N Appeal number 14- 18 -00681-CV is an appeal from the “Order on Motion to Modify Judgment” signed May 10, 2018 . Appeal number 14 - 18 - 00682 - CV is an appeal from the “Amended Order” signed July 9, 2018 . Appellant C.H. filed a motion on September 10, 2018, i n a related appeal, number 14 - 18 - 00281 - CV, in which she states she is abandoning appeals 14 - 18 - 00681 - CV and 14 - 18 - 00682 - CV. We construe that statement as a request for voluntary dismissal of those appeals. Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(1). The request is granted. The appeals are DISMISSED . PER CURIAM Panel consists of Justices Christopher, Jamison, and Brown.
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports.

Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum

opinions. Please also note that this electronic memorandum opinion may contain

computer-generated errors or other deviations from the official paper version filed by the Court of

Appeals and does not include the filing date. 

1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO

2 JOHN JUAREZ ,

3 Plaintiff-Appellant,

4 v. NO. 33,539

5 WILLIAM R. REHM,

6 Defendant-Appellee.

7 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY

8 C. Shannon Bacon, District Judge 

9 Carter & Valle Law Firm, P.C.

10 Criostoir O’Cleireachain 

11 Albuquerque, NM 

12 for Appellant

13 Rosales Law Group, P.C.

14 James Douglas Green

15 Albuquerque, NM 

16 for Appellee

17 MEMORANDUM OPINION

18 FRY, Judge.
2

1 {1} Summary affirmance was proposed for the reasons stated in the notice of

2 proposed summary disposition. No memorandum opposing summary affirmance has

3 been filed, and the time for doing so has expired.

4 {2} AFFIRMED.

5 {3} IT IS SO ORDERED.

6 __________________________________

7 CYNTHIA A. FRY, Judge

8 WE CONCUR:

9 _________________________________

10 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge

11 _________________________________

12 MICHAEL E. VIGIL, Judge
exv10w2




EXHIBIT 10.2




LIST
OF CONTENTS OF EXHIBITS AND SCHEDULES TO THE 
SECOND AMENDED AND RESTATED CREDIT AGREEMENT




Exhibits




	 	 	 

	Exhibit A

	 	Form of Note
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit B-1

	 	Form of Notice of Borrowing
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit B-2

	 	Form of Notice of Conversion/Continuation
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit C-1

	 	Form of Syndicated Letter of Credit
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit C-2

	 	Form of Participated Letter of Credit
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit D

	 	Form of Compliance Certificate
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit E

	 	Form of Assignment and Assumption
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit F

	 	Form of Second Amended and Restated Security Agreement
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit G-1

	 	Form of Opinion of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit G-2

	 	Form of Opinion of Conyers, Dill & Pearman Limited
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit G-3

	 	Form of Opinion of Funk & Bolton, P.A.
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit H

	 	Form of Borrowing Base Report
	 
	 	 
	Exhibit I

	 	Form of Existing Lender Agreements






Schedules



	 	 	 

	Schedule 1.1(a)

	 	Commitments and Notice Addresses
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 1.1(b)

	 	Borrowing Base
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 3.3

	 	Existing Letters of Credit
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 5.4

	 	Licenses
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 5.6

	 	Unresolved Tax Claims
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 5.7

	 	Subsidiaries
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 8.2

	 	Indebtedness
	 
	 	 
	Schedule 8.3

	 	Liens
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-2018-0025-3234

CW Bearing USA, Inc:

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

November 19, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2671

Reelcraft Industries:

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
Appeal dismissed and Opinion Filed January 14, 2013

In The 

## QI:ourt of**~peals** 

## jfiftb 11Bistrict of\[exas at 11Ballas No. 05-11-01168-CR No. 05-11-01169-CR PHILLIPS, RONNIE DALE, APPELLANT 

## v. THE-STATE OFTEXAS, APPELLEE On Appeal from the 283rdJudicial District Court Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No. F10-63915-T



### MEMORANDUM OPINION Before Justices FitzGerald, Fillmore, and Evans OpinionbyJustice Evans Appellant has filed motions to withdraw the appeals. Appellant's counsel has approved the motions. This Court hereby GRANTS the motions to withdraw and ORDERS the appeals DISMISSED and that this decision be certified below for observance. See TEX. R. APP. P. 42.2(a).

DoNot Publish TEX. R. APP. P. 47 111168F.U05

## Qtourt ofappeals jfiftl) 

## 1Bistritt of**~exas** 

## at 1Ballas

RONNIE DALEPHILLIPS, Appellant No. 05-ll-01168-CR V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

### JUDGMENT Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Trial Court No. Fl0-63915-T). Opinion delivered byJustice Evans, Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating. Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, we DISMISS the appeal. Judgment entered January 14, 2013.

## Qrourt of**~peal~** 

### jf 

## iftb**i!h~trid** 

## of**~exa~** 

## at 1.1Ballas

RONNIE DALE PHILLIPS, Appellant No. 05-11-01169-CR V. 

### THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee 

### JUDGMENT Appeal from the 283rd Judicial District Court ofDallas County, Texas (Trial Court No. Fll-57321-n. Opinion delivered byJustice Evans, Justices FitzGerald and Fillmore participating. Based on the Court's opinion ofthis date, we DISMISS the appeal. Judgment entered January 14, 2013.

W. EVANS JUSTICE
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 02-6013

ALIVE MICHAEL ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ROBEY LEE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-00-657) Submitted: April 25, 2002 Decided: May 6, 2002 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Alive Michael Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Sandra Wallace-Smith, Assistant Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Alive Michael Anderson seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2254 (West 1994 & Supp. 2001). We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Anderson v. Lee , No. CA00-657 (E.D.N.C. Nov. 19, 2001). 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
<PAGE>



                    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, Jan Wallace, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant
to  Section  906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that the Quarterly Report on
Form  10-QSB  of MW Medical, Inc. for the quarterly period ending March 31, 2003
fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities
Exchange  Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the Quarterly Report
on  Form 10-QSB fairly presents in all material respects the financial condition
and  results  of  operations  of  MW  Medical,  Inc.


                           By:     /s/ Jan  Wallace
                                   -------------------------
                           Name:   Jan  Wallace
                           Title:  Chief  Executive  Officer

                           Date:   May  29,  2003
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-2018-0025-11544

ACEA Biosciences, 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 concerns a product strategically important or related to 

‘‘Made in China 2025’’ or other Chinese industrial programs.

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
NOT FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

CAROL THOMAS, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

 v. 

SAN FRANCISCO COMMUNITY 

COLLEGE DISTRICT, 

Defendant-Appellee.

No. 17-15766 

D.C. No. 4:15-cv-05504-HSG 

MEMORANDUM*

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of California

Haywood S. Gilliam, Jr., District Judge, Presiding

Submitted December 18, 2017**

Before: WALLACE, SILVERMAN, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges. 

Carol Thomas appeals pro se from the district court’s judgment dismissing 

her action alleging race discrimination under Title VI and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. We 

have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo a dismissal for 

failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). Ebner v. Fresh, Inc., 838 

 

* This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent 

except as provided by Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3.

** The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision 

without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).

FILED

DEC 26 2017

MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
2 17-15766 

F.3d 958, 962 (9th Cir. 2016). We affirm.

The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s Title VI discrimination claim 

because Thomas failed to allege facts sufficient to show that the defendant 

discriminated against Thomas on the basis of her race. See Fobbs v. Holy Cross 

Health Sys. Corp., 29 F.3d 1439, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994) (setting forth pleading 

requirements for stating a Title VI discrimination claim), overruled on other 

grounds by Daviton v. Columbia/HCA Healthcare Corp., 241 F.3d 1131 (9th Cir.

2001) (en banc); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (to avoid 

dismissal, “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 

state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” (citation and internal quotation 

marks omitted)). 

The district court properly dismissed Thomas’s § 1981 claim because the 

defendant is immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment. See Mitchell v. 

Los Angeles Cmty. Coll. Dist., 861 F.2d 198, 201-02 (9th Cir. 1988) (explaining 

that “under the eleventh amendment, agencies of the state are immune from private 

damage actions or suits for injunctive relief brought in federal court”). 

Defendant’s motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 24) is denied as 

unnecessary. 

AFFIRMED.
**THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS**

**Post Office Box 12248**

**Austin, Texas 78711**

**(512) 463-1312**

February 15, 2008

Mr. Thomas C. Wright

Wright Brown & Close, LLP

Three Riverway, Suite 600

Houston, TX 77056

Mr. Charles F. Fulbruge III, Clerk

U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit

600 S. Maestri Place

New Orleans, TX 70130

Mr. William C. Schmidt

Law Offices of William Schmidt

707 W. 18th St.

Austin, TX 78701-1113

RE:Case Number:  06-0868

Court of Appeals Number:  5:04-CV-389

Trial Court Number:  05-50813

Style:NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF PITTSBURG, PA

v.

BEATRICE CROCKER

Dear Counsel:

Today the Supreme Court of Texas delivered the enclosed opinion in the above-referenced cause.  

Sincerely,

Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

by Claudia Jenks, Chief Deputy Clerk

Enclosures

**Case No. 06-0868Page 1**
#### MRS. MATTIE BOYAN v. DUKE POWER COMPANY.

(Filed 11 December, 1946.)

Appeal by plaintiff from *Burgwyn, Special Judge,*at March Term, 1946, of Guileobd (High Point Division).

Civil action to recover damages, alleged to have been sustained by reason of the negligence of the defendant, a common carrier of passen*698gers, when plaintiff was invited to alight from one of defendant’s buses at a dangerous and unsafe place.

The issue of negligence was answered in favor of the defendant and judgment entered accordingly.

The plaintiff appeals, assigning error.

*Gold, McAnally■ & Gold for plaintiff.*

*W. 8. O’B. Robinson, Jr., Horace 8. Haworth, Owen Reese, and Carter Dalton for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

The exceptions have been carefully considered. They present no new questions of law. The case was one for the jury and it has spoken in a trial free from prejudicial error. Hence, in the trial below we find

No error.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

January 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2570

Primex Family of Companies:

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
EXHIBIT 23.1


INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



     We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos.
33-94026, 33-51234, 33-75028, 33-77684, 33-57628, 33-80581, 33-80583, 333-42775,
333-89325, 333-89329 and 333-89327 of Apria Healthcare Group Inc. on Form S-8 of
our report dated April 1, 2002,  appearing in this Annual Report on Form 10-K of
Apria Healthcare Group Inc. for the year ended December 31, 2001.



DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

Costa Mesa, California
April 1, 2002