alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 46 (Thursday, March 9, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Pages 12943-12944]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5736]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-183-000]


West Texas Gas, Inc.; Notice of Petition for Waiver

March 3, 1995.
    Take notice that on February 28, 1995, West Texas Gas, Inc. (WTG), 
filed with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission a request for 
waiver of Sections 154.304 and 154.308 of the Commission's Regulations, 
to the extent necessary to permit a 15-day extension of time within 
which to file its Quarterly PGA filing in the referenced docket, which 
is currently due to be filed on March 1, 1995, to be effective April 1, 
1995.
    WTG states that because of its small size, WTG has not had a chance 
to compile all of the information necessary to file WTG's Quarterly PGA 
filing by March 1. WTG requests that the Commission grant an extension 
of the filing deadline to March 15, 1995.
    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, D.C. 
20426 in accordance with Sec. 385.211 [[Page 12944]] and 385.214 of the 
Commission's Rule and Regulations. All such motions or protests should 
be filed on or before March 10, 1995. Protests will be considered by 
the Commission in determining the appropriate action to be taken, but 
will not serve to make 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 in the Public Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-5736 Filed 3-8-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
<partyblock><br><br><div align="center"><b><font size="+1">The People of the State of New York, Respondent,<br><br>against<br><br>Sean Sylvester, Defendant-Appellant.</font></b></div><br><br><p>In consolidated criminal prosecutions, defendant appeals from two judgments of the Criminal Court of the City of New York, New York County (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), each rendered March 6, 2013, after a nonjury trial, convicting him of disorderly conduct and trespass, and imposing sentence.</p><p>Per Curiam.</p><p>Judgments of conviction (John Cataldo, J.H.O.), rendered March 6, 2013, affirmed.</p><p>The accusatory instruments underlying these consolidated Summons Part prosecutions were not jurisdictionally defective. Read together, the informations alleged that defendant was inside a store at 1955 1st Avenue in New York County with "no legitimate purpose" and that when he was asked by "store workers" to leave, he "refused" and "began fighting" with the workers. These factual allegations, "given a fair and not overly restrictive or technical reading" (<i>People v Casey</i>, 95 NY2d 354, 360 [2000]), are sufficient for pleading purposes to establish reasonable cause to believe and a prima facie case that defendant was guilty of disorderly conduct (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง240.20[1]) and trespass (<i>see </i>Penal Law ยง140.05). With respect to the disorderly conduct charge, the public dimension element of the offense was properly inferable from allegations that defendant was inside a commercial establishment that was obviously open to the public and store employees were present. It can also be inferred that patrons were present in the store or likely to enter. Thus, the incident had carried beyond the concern of the individual disputants to a point where it became "a potential or immediate public problem" (<a href="../2011/2011_00745.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Weaver</i>, 16 NY3d 123</a>, 128 [2011], quoting <i>People v Munafo</i>, 50 NY2d 326, 331 [1980]; <a href="../2011/2011_02971.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Lepard</i>, 83 AD3d 1214</a>, 1215-1216 [2011], <i>lv denied </i>18 NY3d 925 [2012]; <a href="../2015/2015_51437.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Rubackin</i>, 49 Misc 3d 132</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op. 51437[U] [App Term, 9th &amp; 10th Jud Dists 2015]).</p><p>The "remains unlawfully" element of the trespass charge was established by allegations that defendant defied a lawful order excluding him from the premises, personally communicated to <font color="FF0000">[*2]</font>him by a person authorized to make the order (<i>see People v Leonard, </i>62 NY2d 404, 408 [1984]; <a href="../2015/2015_50338.htm" target="_blank"><i>People v Seabrook</i>, 46 Misc 3d 152</a>[A], 2015 NY Slip Op. 50338[U] [App Term, 1st Dept. 2015], <i>lv denied</i> 26 NY3d 1112 [2016]). </p><p>THIS CONSTITUTES THE DECISION AND ORDER OF THE COURT.</p><br>I concur I concur I concur<br>Decision Date: September 14, 2016<br><br><div align="center"><form method="LINK" action="../../slipidx/at_1_idxtable.shtml"><input type="submit" value="Return to Decision List"></form></div></partyblock>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                                   DEC-31-1999
<CASH>                                          5575000
<SECURITIES>                                          0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  10521000
<ALLOWANCES>                                    (830000)
<INVENTORY>                                           0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               15995000
<PP&E>                                        304042000
<DEPRECIATION>                               (194957000)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                135438000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          23411000
<BONDS>                                       138902000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                 0
<PREFERRED>                                           0
<COMMON>                                         243000
<OTHER-SE>                                    (27118000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                  135438000
<SALES>                                        42672000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               42672000
<CGS>                                                 0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  65131000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                      0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             12437000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (34896000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                          0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (34896000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                        0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 (131000)
<CHANGES>                                             0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (35027000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                       (1.46)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     (1.46)



</TABLE>
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE>                     5
<MULTIPLIER>                                   1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                              DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                                 JAN-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                                   MAR-31-2000
<CASH>                                         4,270
<SECURITIES>                                   541
<RECEIVABLES>                                  7,621
<ALLOWANCES>                                   0
<INVENTORY>                                    15,168
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               29,612
<PP&E>                                         39,889
<DEPRECIATION>                                 (17,442)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 54,247
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          8,404
<BONDS>                                        2,706
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                          0
<PREFERRED>                                    0
<COMMON>                                       175
<OTHER-SE>                                     44,152
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   54,247
<SALES>                                        14,761
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               14,761
<CGS>                                          12,520
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  12,520
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               2,535
<LOSS-PROVISION>                               0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                             16
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                (278)
<INCOME-TAX>                                   (97)
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                            (181)
<DISCONTINUED>                                 0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                0
<CHANGES>                                      0
<NET-INCOME>                                   (181)
<EPS-BASIC>                                    (.02)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                  (.02)




</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 53 (Monday, March 20, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 14736]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-6807]



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

COMMITTEE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF TEXTILE AGREEMENTS


Announcement of Import Restraint Limits for Certain Cotton and 
Man-Made Fiber Textile Products Produced or Manufactured in Pakistan; 
Correction

March 13, 1995.
    In the table of the letter to Commissioner of Customs published on 
February 16, 1995 (60 FR 9014), delete the entry for Category 617 at 
the level of 15,286,929 square meters.
Rita D. Hayes,
Chairman, Committee for the Implementation of Textile Agreements.
[FR Doc. 95-6807 Filed 3-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DR-F
#### Eric DAVIS *v.*STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-1135

983 S.W.2d 122

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Opinion delivered November 12, 1998

C. *Richard Lippard,*for appellant.

No response.

*137Per Curiam.

Appellant Eric Davis filed a motion for rule on the clerk on September 15, 1998. We denied the motion because appellant’s attorney, C. Richard Lippard, did not admit fault in failing to timely file the record. *See Davis v. State,*334 Ark. 427, 975 S.W.2d 97 (1998) *(per curiam).*We indicated, however, that we would grant the motion if appellant’s attorney filed within thirty days a motion and affidavit accepting full responsibility for not timely filing the record. Appellant’s attorney has assumed full responsibility for the error in a second motion for rule on the clerk filed on October 28, 1998.

We find that such error, admittedly made by the attorney for a criminal defendant, is good cause to grant the motion. *See Johnson v. State,*332 Ark. 78, 959 S.W.2d 54 (1998) *(per curiam); In Re: Belated Appeals in Criminal Cases,*265 Ark. 964 (1979) *(per curiam).*A copy of this *per curiam*will be forwarded to the Committee on Professional Conduct. *See Harkness v. State,*264 Ark. 561, 572 S.W.2d 835 (1978).
<PAGE>
 
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                         INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT



We consent to incorporation by reference in the registration statements (Nos.
33-79178, 33-80936 and 333-1808) on Form S-8 and registration statements (Nos.
33-90384, 333-16287, 33-70962, 33-44746 and 333-27397) on Form S-3 of
Integrated Process Equipment Corp. of our report dated August 1, 1997,
relating to the consolidated balance sheets of Integrated Process Equipment
Corp. and subsidiaries as of June 30, 1997 and 1996, and the related
consolidated statements of operations, changes in stockholders' equity and
cash flows for the years then ended, which report appears in the June 30, 1997
Annual Report on Form 10-K of Integrated Process Equipment Corp.


                                         /s/ KPMG Peat Marwick LLP


Phoenix, Arizona
September 2, 1997
#### STATE v. MANESS.

(Filed 8 December, 1926.)

Criminal Daw — Seduction—Statutes—Evidence—Unsupported Testimony of Prosecutrix.

In order to convict of tbe felony prescribed by C. S., 4339, tbe testimony of tbe prosecutrix must be supported by other legal evidence of facts and circumstances as to tbe carnal knowledge, etc.

Appeal from *Finley, J.,*and a jury, at August Term, 1926, of Mooke. New trial.

*Attorney-General Brummitt and Assistant Attorney-General Nash for the State.*

*H. F. Seawell and Herbert Seawell, Jr., for defendant.*

Per Curiam.

Defendant was indicted under C. S., 4339, wbicb is as follows: “If any man shall seduce an innocent and virtuous woman under promise of marriage, be shall be guilty of a felony, and upon conviction shall be fined or imprisoned at tbe discretion of the court, and may be imprisoned in tbe State prison not exceeding tbe term of five years: *Provided,*tbe unsupported testimony of tbe woman shall not be sufficient to convict: *Provided further,*that marriage between tbe parties *709shall be a bar to further prosecution hereunder. But when such marriage is relied upon by the defendant, it shall operate as to the costs of the case as a plea of *nolo contendere,*and the defendant shall be required to pay all the costs of the action or be liable to imprisonment for nonpayment of the same.”

There were three elements to this crime: (1) The carnal intercourse; (2) with an innocent and virtuous woman; (3) induced by promise of marriage.

“The statute, however, has this proviso: *'Provided,*the unsupported testimony of the woman shall not be sufficient to convict.’ There are three essentials to the conviction. All the elements must be proved by supporting testimony.” *S. v. Doss,*188 N. C., p. 214; *S. v. Crook,*189 N. C., p. 545.

In *S. v. Ferguson,*107 N. C., at p. 850-1, it is held: “The crime does not consist in the sexual intercourse, nor in the seduction, nor in the innocence and virtue of the woman, but in committing the act under promise of marriage, without which no crime is created by the statute, and which alone makes the seduction criminal, and in this it- is not sufficient that the prosecutrix shall be corroborated, but she must be supported by independent facts or circumstances.”

Under the facts in the present case, we do not think the prosecutrix supported by independent facts or circumstances, as to the carnal intercourse. The record shows the defendant is 27 years old and the prose-cutrix is 40 years old. No child was born of the intercourse. There is no evidence in the record in which her testimony is supported by independent facts or circumstances, as is required by the statute. There must be a

New trial.
I 

118TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. R. 4859 

To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to direct the Secretary 

of Energy to submit to Congress a report containing an assessment 

of any physical or cybersecurity incidents to a storage facility or a 

related facility of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JULY 25, 2023 

Mr. FALLON (for himself and Mr. VEASEY) introduced the following bill; 

which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

A BILL 

To amend the Energy Policy and Conservation Act to direct 

the Secretary of Energy to submit to Congress a report 

containing an assessment of any physical or cybersecurity 

incidents to a storage facility or a related facility of 

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may cited as the ‘‘Strategic Petroleum Re5 serve Security Assessment Act’’ or the ‘‘SPR Security As6 sessment Act’’. 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
2 

•HR 4859 IH

1 SEC. 2. ANNUAL INCIDENT ASSESSMENT. 

2 Section 161 of the Energy Policy and Conservation 

3 Act (42 U.S.C. 6241) is amended by adding at the end 

4 the following: 

5 ‘‘(k) ANNUAL INCIDENT ASSESSMENT.— 

6 ‘‘(1) IN GENERAL.—Not later than 180 days 

7 after the date of enactment of this subsection, and 

8 every year thereafter, the Secretary shall submit to 

9 Congress a report containing an assessment of any 

10 physical or cybersecurity incidents to a storage facil11 ity or a related facility of the Reserve. 

12 ‘‘(2) REQUIREMENTS.—The assessment re13 quired under paragraph (1) shall include the fol14 lowing: 

15 ‘‘(A) The dates of each physical or cyberse16 curity incident that occurred. 

17 ‘‘(B) The resolution of such physical or cy18 bersecurity incident. 

19 ‘‘(C) The local, State, and Federal agen20 cies that assisted in mitigating such physical or 

21 cybersecurity incident. 

22 ‘‘(D) Any other information the Secretary 

23 determines necessary.’’. 

Æ 


kjohnson on DSK79L0C42PROD with BILLS
EXHIBIT 32


Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the following certifications are being made to
accompany the Registrant's annual report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended
June 30, 2003:

Certification of Chief Executive Officer

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal quarter
     ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:    September 8, 2003

                                          /s/ Greg Manning
                                          ------------------------------------
                                          Greg  Manning,  President  and Chief
                                          Executive Officer


Certification of Chief Financial Officer
----------------------------------------

Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as created by Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of Greg Manning Auctions,
Inc. (the "Company") hereby certifies, to such officer's knowledge, that:

     (i) the Annual Report on Form 10-K of the Company for the fiscal quarter
     ended May 31, 2003 (the "Report") fully complies with the requirements of
     Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, of the Securities Exchange
     Act of 1934, as amended; and

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


Dated:     September 8, 2003

                                        /s/ Larry Crawford
                                        -----------------------------------
                                        Larry Crawford, Chief Financial Officer
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

October 26, 2018

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-1544

Crystal Mountain 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
Order filed September 17, 2015 

In The

Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________

NO. 14-15-00709-CV

____________

IN THE MATTER OF A.F., Appellant

On Appeal from the 314th District Court

Harris County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. 2014-03135J

O R D E R

This is an appeal from a judgment signed May 6, 2015. The notice of appeal 

was due August 4, 2015. See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Appellant, however, filed his 

notice of appeal on August 19, 2015, a date within 15 days of the due date for the 

notice of appeal. A motion for extension of time is necessarily implied when the 

perfecting instrument is filed within 15 days of its due date. Verburgt v. Dorner, 

959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (Tex. 1997). Appellant did not file a motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal. While an extension may be implied, appellant is still 

obligated to come forward with a reasonable explanation to support the late filing. 
See Miller v. Greenpark Surgery Center Assocs., Ltd., 974 S.W.2d 805, 808 (Tex. 

App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1998, no pet.). 

Accordingly, we ORDER appellant to file a proper motion to extend time to 

file the notice of appeal on or before 10 days after the date of this order. See Tex. 

R. App. P. 26.3;10.5(b). If appellant does not comply with this order, we will 

dismiss the appeal. See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3.

PER CURIAM
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-2018-0025-3481

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