alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7462]



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


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Water Heater Industry Joint Research and 
Development Consortium

    Notice is hereby given that, on February 28, 1995, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), the participants in the 
Water Heater Industry Joint Research and Development Consortium have 
filled written notifications simultaneously with the Attorney General 
and the Federal Trade Commission disclosing (1) the identities of the 
parties and (2) the nature and objectives of the venture. The 
notifications were filed for the purpose of invoking the Act's 
provisions limiting the recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual 
damages under specified circumstances. Pursuant to section 6(b) of the 
Act, the identifies of the parties are: Bradford White Corporation, 
Ambler, PA; GSW Water Heater Company, Fergus, Ontario CANADA; Rheem 
Manufacturing Company, New York, NY; Sothcorp USA, Inc., Bala Cynwyd, 
PA; and State Industries, Inc., Ashland City, TN. The purpose of the 
cooperative arrangement is to determine whether a gas, residential, 
bottom fired water heater may be designed or modified to reduce or 
prevent the ignition of flammable vapors in a contained area without 
compromising the integrity of the heater, creating hazards, or 
violating existing safety and energy efficiency standards.
Constance K. Robinson,
Director of Operations, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 95-7462 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-01-M
**EXHIBIT 23.2****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No.333-64999, No. 333-119971, No. 333-126075 and No. 333-1274545) and Form S-3 (No. 333-133617) ofSynagro Technologies, Inc. of our reports, dated March 2, 2007, relating to the consolidatedfinancial statements, management’s assessment of the effectiveness of internal control overfinancial reporting and the effectiveness of internal control over financial reporting, whichappears in this Form 10-K.Hein & Associates LLP
### NUMBER 13
- 12
- 00031
- CV
COURT OF APPEALS
THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
CORPUS CHRISTI
- EDINBURG

IN RE BOBBY BOURLON

On Petition for Writ of Mandamus.

MEMORANDUM OPINION
Before Chief Justice Valdez and Justices Garza and Vela

Memorandum Opinion Per Curiam 1
Relator, Bobby Bourlon , filed a petition for writ of mandamus and a motion for

emergency stay in th e above cause on January 20, 2012. Through the petition for writ of mandamus, relator sought to compel the trial court to vacate an order rendered on December 15, 2011 granting a pre - suit deposition under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure

202. See T EX

. R. C IV

. P. 202. On January 20, 2012, this Court granted the motion for

emergency stay and order ed the trial court’s December 15, 2011 order to be stayed.
See T EX

. R. A PP

. P

. 52.10(b). By that same order, the Court requested that the real

1 See T EX

. R. A PP . P. 52.8(d) (“When denying relief, the court may hand down an opinion but is not required to do so.”); T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 47.4 (distinguishing opi nions and memorandum opinions).2

party in interest, Charlotte Clark, by and through counsel, file a response to the petition
for writ of mandamus . Relator has now filed a motion to dismiss this original proceeding on grounds that the parties have resolved the issues herein and this matter has been
rendered moot.
The Court, having examined and fully considered the petition for writ of
mandamus an d the motion to dismiss, is of the opinion that the motion to dismiss should be granted. Accordingly, the stay previously imposed by this Court is LIFTED. See id.

R. 52.10(b) (“Unless vacated or modified, an order granting temporary relief is effective until the case is finally decided.”). The motion to dismiss is GRANTED. The petition for
writ of mandamus is D ISMISSED without reference to the merits. See id. R. 52.8(a).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
PER CURIAM

D elivered and file d the 6th day of February, 2012

.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

 _________________________________________

 Clerk

April 1, 2013

t0325

Order 

April 1, 2013

146487

AUTO CLUB INSURANCE ASSOCIATION,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 146487

COA: 305592 

Wayne CC: 10-010509-NF

FRANKENMUTH MUTUAL INSURANCE

COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the November 29, 2012 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.
================================================================================
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 Quarterly Report of Scala  Minerals, Inc. (the "Company")
on Form 10-QSB for   the   period   ended   December 31, 2005 as filed  with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on   the   date   hereof (the "Report"),  the
undersigned, in the capacities and   on   the   dates   indicated  below, hereby
certifies pursuant to 18 U.S.C.  Section 1350, as adopted    pursuant to Section
906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to her knowledge:

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.


Date:  February 13, 2006

/s/ Elena Krioukova
-------------------------------------------
Elena Krioukova, Principal Financial Officer
FILED 

U.S. COURT OF APPEALS

 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT 

 April 19, 2005 

 THOMAS K. KAHN 

 CLERK

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

________________________

No. 04-14231

Non-Argument Calendar

________________________

D. C. Docket No. 03-20077-CV-ASG

KEITH L. THOMPSON, 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

versus 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY, a political subdivision 

of State of Florida, 

Defendants-Appellees, 

________________________

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Southern District of Florida

_________________________

(April 19, 2005)

Before ANDERSON, BLACK and WILSON, Circuit Judges.
2

PER CURIAM:

Keith Thompson (“Thompson”) appeals the district court’s grant of

summary judgment in favor of defendant Miami-Dade County in Thompson’s 42

U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging deliberate indifference in violation of the Eighth

Amendment. 

In December of 1999, Thompson alleges that he was the victim of inmateon-inmate violence while he was an incarcerated in the Miami-Dade County

Detention Center. He brought suit against, inter alia, Miami-Dade County,

claiming that the County violated his Eighth Amendment rights to be free from

cruel and unusual punishment. On cross-motions for summary judgment, the

district court granted Miami-Dade County’s motion and denied Thompson’s

motion.

We review a district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo, viewing

the evidence in the light most favorable to the party opposing the motion. Wilson

v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., 376 F.3d 1079, 1085 (11th Cir. 2004). Summary judgment

is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue was to any material fact and . . . the

moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c).

We have carefully reviewed the record, the briefs of the parties, and the

order of the district court on summary judgment. Construing the evidence in the
3

light most favorable to Thompson, it is clear that he has failed to present any

genuine issues of material fact. The allegations raised and the evidence presented

does not state a violation of the Eighth Amendment on the part of Miami-Dade

county, and the county was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Therefore, the

well-reasoned opinion of the district court is 

AFFIRMED.
##### 



EXHIBIT 31.1
 RULE 13a-14(a)/15d-14(a)
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB of FedFirst Financial Corporation;
 2.
    
    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact
or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the
circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period
covered by this report;
 3.
    
    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in
this report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of
operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this
report;
 4
    
    The registrants other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and
maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and
15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:
 (a)
    
    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure
controls and procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material
information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is
made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in
which this report is being prepared;(b)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report
based on such evaluation; 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 the registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent
functions):
 (a)
    
    All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation
of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely
affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial
information; 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:
    
    May 12, 2006
    
    /s/ John G. RobinsonJohn G. RobinsonPresident and Chief Executive Officer
**Exhibit 99.1**

**INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANT’S REPORT**

Board of Directors Killbuck Bancshares, Inc.

We have reviewed the accompanying consolidated balance sheet of Killbuck Bancshares, Inc. and subsidiary as of June 30, 2003, and therelated consolidated statement of income for the six month and three month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statement of cash flows for the six month periods ended June 30, 2003 and 2002, and the consolidated statement ofchanges in shareholders’ equity for the six month period ended June 30, 2003. These financial statements are the responsibility of the Company’s management.

We conducted our review in accordancewith standards established by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures to financial data and making inquiries of persons responsible forfinancial and accounting matters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regardingthe financial statements taken as a whole. Accordingly we do not express such an opinion.

Based on our review, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to the accompanyingfinancial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America.

We have previously audited, in accordance with auditing standards generallyaccepted in the United States of America, the consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, and the related consolidated statements of income, changes in shareholders’ equity and cash flows for the year then ended (not presented herein);and in our report dated February 20, 2003 we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet as of December 31, 2002, is fairlystated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidated balance sheet from which it has been derived.

|                               |        |
|-------------------------------|--------|
| /s/ S.R. SNODGRASS, A.C. |   |
| Steubenville, Ohio            |   |
| August 11, 2003               |   |
|                          |   |
| S.R. Snodgrass, A.C.          |   |
| 626 North Fourth Street       |   |
| Steubenville, Ohio 43952-1982 |   |
| Phone: 740-282-2771           |   |
| Facsimile: 740-282-1606       |   |
### THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS

13

- 14

- 00540

- CV

Pangaea Floor Company d/b/a Pangea Floor Coverings and Juan Carlos Cervantes a/k/a J.C. Cervantes

v. Interceramic, Inc.

On Appeal from the County Court at Law No 1 of Hidalgo County , Texas

Trial Cause N o. CL

- 13

- 3529

- A

JUDGMENT THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal, concludes the appeal should be DISMISSED . The Court orders the appeal DISMISSED in accordance with its opinion . Costs of the appeal are adjudged against

a ppellant.
We further order this decision certified below for observance.

January 22 , 2015
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM FORM
10-QSB--CENTRAL AMERICAN EQUITIES CORPROATION.
</LEGEND>
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1999
<CASH>                                           3,312
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                     23,979
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                27,291
<PP&E>                                       8,261,093
<DEPRECIATION>                                 476,402
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               8,830,856
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           58,638
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                        12,230
<OTHER-SE>                                   7,164,015
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 8,830,856
<SALES>                                              0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               451,121
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                  789,558
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               172,829
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              13,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (124,812)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                                  0
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (124,812)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.01)
        

</TABLE>
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 60 (Wednesday, March 29, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 16159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7728]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service


Notice of Intent To Issue a Prospectus for the Operation of Hotel 
and Related Facilities in Kings Canyon National Park

SUMMARY: The National Park Service is seeking to award a concession 
contract for the future operation and improvement of existing visitor 
facilities within Kings Canyon National Park, which is part of Sequoia 
and Kings Canyon National Parks.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The concession facilities, which include 
overnight accommodations, food service, retail and other related 
operations, are located at the Grant Grove and Cedar Grove areas of the 
park. Grant Grove is a year-round operation, and Cedar Grove operates 
only during the summer.
    To be placed on the mailing list to receive this prospectus send 
your name and address to: National Park Service/Concession Program 
Management Division, Attention: Kings Canyon Prospectus, 600 Harrison 
Street, Suite 600, San Francisco, CA 94107-1372, or call: (415) 744-
3981--Teresa Jackson.
    Applications will be accepted for One Hundred and Twenty (120) days 
under the terms described in the Prospectus. The One Hundred and Twenty 
(120) day application period will begin with the release of the 
Prospectus, is expected to occur shortly after the publication of this 
notice.

    Dated: November 16, 1994.
Patricia L. Neubacher,
Acting Regional Director, Western Region.
[FR Doc. 95-7728 Filed 3-28-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-70-M
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-6872

KERRY LEE WOODARD,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

KENNETH HORNING; THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF 

MARYLAND,

Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

Maryland, at Baltimore. Richard D. Bennett, District Judge. 

(1:07-cv-03463-RDB)

Submitted: March 30, 2010 Decided: May 10, 2010

Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Kerry Lee Woodard, Appellant Pro Se. Edward John Kelley, OFFICE 

OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MARYLAND, Baltimore, Maryland, for 

Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Kerry Lee Woodard seeks to appeal the district court’s 

order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition. 

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge 

issues a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. 

§ 2253(c)(1) (2006). 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) (2006). A 

prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that 

reasonable jurists would find that any assessment of the 

constitutional claims by the district court is debatable or 

wrong and that any dispositive procedural ruling by the district 

court is likewise debatable. See Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 

U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003); Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U.S. 473, 484 

(2000); Rose v. Lee, 252 F.3d 676, 683-84 (4th Cir. 2001). We 

have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Woodard

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
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-2018-0025-2698

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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 23, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-2980

Jay Dee Obayashi JV:

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 did not contain a sufficient product identification or was 

determined to be non-administrable.

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel