alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7407]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-145-001]


Northwest Pipeline Corporation; Notice of Proposed Change in FERC 
Gas Tariff

March 21, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 16, 1995, Northwest Pipeline Corporation 
(Northwest) tendered for filing and acceptance as part of its FERC Gas 
Tariff, Third Revised Volume No. 1, Substitute Original Sheet No. 125, 
with a proposed effective to coincide with the same effective date 
ultimately given to tariff sheets previously filed in this docket.
    Northwest states that the purpose of this filing is to comply with 
the Commission's March 1, 1995, Order Accepting and Suspending Tariff 
Sheets Subject to Refund and Conditions and Establishing Technical 
Conference (Order). The Order was issued in response to Northwest's 
January 30, 1995, filing wherein Northwest proposed to implement tariff 
provisions that would allow Northwest to sell (i) gas that becomes the 
property of Northwest pursuant to the provisions of terminated 
transportation or storage agreements or due to tariff provisions 
relating to interruptible storage or shipper imbalances; and (ii) other 
de minimis volumes of gas as the need arises.
    Northwest states that it has revised ``Section 3. Rates and 
Charges'' of Rate Schedule S-1 on Sheet No. 125 by removing the phrase 
``and such rates and charges shall not be subject to the jurisdiction 
of the Commission.'' Northwest states that it also responded in the 
instant filing to the intervenors' concerns.
    Northwest states that a copy of this filing has been served upon 
Northwest's jurisdictional customers, upon all intervenors in Docket 
No. RP95-145-000 and upon interested state regulatory commissions.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol 
Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Sec. 385.211 of 
the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests 
should be filed on or before March 28, 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. 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. 95-7407 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### APPEAL 

### O F 

### F LORIDA 

### S ECOND 

### D ISTRICT

ROGER MARX DESENBERG,

Appellant, v. STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. No. 2D22-1036 September 1, 2023 Appeal from the Circuit Court for Sarasota County; Donna M. Padar, Judge, and Lee E. Haworth, Senior Judge. Andrea Flynn Mogensen of The Law Office of Andrea Flynn Mogensen, P.A., Sarasota, for Appellant. Ashley Moody, Attorney General, Tallahassee, and Jonathan S. Tannen, Assistant Attorney General, Tampa, for Appellee. PER CURIAM. Affirmed. NORTHCUTT, SILBERMAN, and VILLANTI, JJ., Concur. Opinion subject to revision prior to official publication.
---

Exhibit 32.2




CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL
OFFICER


PURSUANT TO


18 U.S.C. SECTION
1350,


AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO


SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT
OF 2002




I, Maury
Austin, certify, that to my knowledge, the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of
MIPS Technologies, Inc. for the quarter ended March 31, 2009 (the
“Form 10-Q”), to which
this certificate is an exhibit fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended,
and that information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all
material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of MIPS
Technologies, Inc. for the three month period covered by the
Form 10-Q.




Date: May
      5, 2009
            By:
            /s/ MAURY AUSTIN
              Maury
      Austin
              Vice President and Chief
      Financial Officer,
              MIPS Technologies,
      Inc












A signed
original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been
provided by MIPS Technologies and will be retained by it and furnished to the
Securities Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.


---
#### CARRIE L. STEWART, Administratrix, v. PHŒBE DOAR et al.

(Filed 28 June, 1933.)

Executors and Administrators D e — Docketed judgment com.es within fifth class enumerated by statute prescribing priority.

A docketed judgment against the lands of a deceased comes within the fifth class enumerated by the statute prescribing priority, O. S., 93, and, unless made so by its terms, is not such a “specific lien on property” as to bring it within the first class enumerated by the statute.

Appeal by defendants from *Warticle, J.,*at February Term, 1933, of RowaN.

Proceeding to sell land to make assets, and to determine priority of application.

The defendants were judgment creditors of plaintiff’s intestate at the time of his death. He died seized and possessed of a tract of land in Rowan County, which has been sold to make assets. The personal estate of decedent is insufficient to pay his debts.

The following question was submitted to the court for decision on an agreed statement of facts: “Do the judgments of the defendant against the lands of the deceased, taken during his lifetime, have precedence and priority over a claim for funeral expenses for the burial of the deceased ?”

The court held “that the judgments of the defendants, although duly docketed on real estate several years preceding the death of the judgment debtor, do not have precedence and priority over a claim for funeral expenses; it is, therefore, ordered and adjudged, that the pro*38ceeds from the sale of said lands shall first be applied .to the payment of funeral expenses before any part shall be applied on the judgments of the defendants.”

From this ruling, the defendants appeal, assigning error.

*No counsel appearing fdr plaintiff.*

*R. Lee Wright for defendants.*

Stacy, C. J.

The question propounded is answered by the statute. It is provided by C. S., 93 that the debts of a decedent shall he paid in classes, funeral expenses constituting the second class, and docketed judgments, to the extent of the lien *(Jerkins v. Carter,*70 N. C., 500), the fifth. The lien of a docketed judgment, which is *eo nomine*put in the fifth class, is not such a “specific lien on property,” unless made so by its terms, as to come within the first class mentioned in the statute.

Upon the record as presented, the judgment is correct. *Murchison v. Williams,*71 N. C., 135.

Affirmed.
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15760]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7404]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP95-65-001]


Transwestern Pipeline Co.; Notice of Compliance Filing

March 21, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 10, 1995, Transwestern Pipeline Company 
(Transwestern), tendered for filing as part of it FERC Gas Tariff, 
Second Revised Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheet:

Effective January 5, 1995

Seventh Revised Sheet No. 2

and as part of its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 2, the 
following tariff sheets:

Effective January 5, 1995,

Eighteenth Revised Sheet No. 1
First Revised Sheet No. 88

    On January 5, 1995, the Commission issued an order in this 
proceeding granting Transwestern and Natural Gas Pipeline Company of 
America (NGPL) abandonment authorization under Section 7(b) of the 
Natural Gas Act (January 5 Order). The January 5 Order authorized the 
abandonment of Transwestern's and NGPL's natural gas exchange service 
under Transwestern's Rate Schedule X-7 and NGPL's Rate Schedule X-18, 
subject to certain conditions including Transwestern making the instant 
filing. Pursuant to Ordering Paragraph (A), Transwestern herein submits 
the above referenced tariff sheets to reflect the abandonment of the 
certificated exchange service under Transwestern's Rate Schedule X-7 
set forth in Transwestern's FERC Gas Tariff, Second Revised Volume No. 
1 and Original Volume No. 2.
    Transwestern respectfully requests that the Commission grant any 
and all waivers of its rules, regulations, and orders as may be 
necessary, specifically, but not limited to, Sections 154.22 and 154.63 
of the Commission's Regulations, so as to permit the tariff sheets 
submitted herewith to become effective January 5, 1995, which is the 
effective date of the Commission's Order issued in Docket No. CP95-65-
000.
    Any person desiring to protest said filing should file a protest 
with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street 
NE., Washington, DC 20426, in accordance with Rule 211 of the 
Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure. All such protests should 
be filed on or before March 28, 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. Copies of 
this filing are on file with the Commission and are available for 
public inspection.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 95-7404 Filed 3-24-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

July 3, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-1814

GHL International, 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 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
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

February 4, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-4543

Swagelok Company:

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

General Counsel
3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,

3803928/7(&$67,1*35(6685(&217$,1,1*&%521=(



3,$==$52%(57

35,&(3803&203$1<

2WKHU

12

3XEOLF9HUVLRQRI%&,
 .*

<(6

12

 .*

 

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

385&+$6,1*5$:0$7(5,$/$1'0$&+,1,1*,7'20(67,&$//<&267
PUBLIC VERSION
$[*********] [******]

$[*********]

INPUT

20.0

$[*********]

[******]

[******]

0.05

PUBLIC VERSION
Consistent with USTR's Section 301 notice, OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. requests

confidential treatment for the information designated as business confidential in this submission. Such

information consists of information that would not customarily be released to the public, including

business or trade secrets regarding production costs and processes, data on sales, product characteristics

customers, destinations, and other product, sales, and cost-related business secrets. Business confidential

information has been indicated herein by enclosing it in single brackets (“[ ]”). A public version of these

comments is also being filed with all confidential information removed.

OMRON in the US is the only designer of this

product and only supplier of this component. OMRON in the US is the only designer of this product and

only supplier of this component. POWER WINDOW SWITCH is a molded plastic switch containing

electrical switches, and is used only for automotive purposes as a switch to move the windows. It is only

used for further assembly of components which go into domestic automobile production. which is

specified by auto manufacturer.

This product is not a target of the US Administration's 301 investigation regarding Intellectual Property

concerns. This is not a concern to IP transfer and impressment. This product contains no IP of interest

related to autonomous vehicle production.

The tariff action ultimately poses a risk of significant damage to OMRON, the domestic

automobile industry, and ultimately the US consumer as a

increase in price. Like in the case of similar approvals for vehicle components at the HTS

level, OMRON views this product in the same manner. Immediate movement of production to a US

manufacturer or another country would pose significant re-tooling costs, significant

amounts of time, and approvals pertaining

to consumer automobile safety standards are costly and would take a significant amount of time to

obtain.

OMRON Management Center of America, Inc. believes that CBP can easily exclude the POWER

WINDOW SWITCH in question based solely on the product description. The following are draft CBP

exclusion instructions:

"POWER WINDOW SWITCH "T"-shaped assembly with a "U"-shaped switch oriented with the length

of the T shape "Metal, Plastic, Rubber, Other Material & Material Compound Power Window Switch

(Rear Right); Consist of Case assy, Cover, PCB ASSY and 2 strikers. Inside Case Assy: Knob, light

guide, plunger and spring. Dimensions are 84 mm X 53 mm X 62.5 mm"

This information will be contained on the invoice from the supplier

PUBLIC VERSION
| Name                   |                                       | Jurisdiction of Incorporation |
|------------------------|--------------------------------------------|-------------------------------|
|                   |                                       |                          |
| EnerDel, Inc.          |                                       | Delaware                      |
| EnerFuel, Inc.         |                                       | Delaware                      |
| NanoEner, Inc.         |                                       | Florida                       |
| EnerDel Japan, Inc.    |                                       | Japan                         |
| Ener1 Battery Company  |                                       | Florida                       |
| Ener1 Korea, Inc.*     |                                       | Republic of Korea             |
| Emerging Power, Inc.** |                                       | New Jersey                    |
| Ener1 Europe, S.A.S.   |                                       | France                        |
|                   |                                       |                          |
| *                      | 94% owned subsidiary                       |
| **                     | 100% owned subsidiary of Ener1 Korea, Inc. |

----
null

2013-05-22

382.45502

eng - Argued: 2013-05-22. Docket number: 1-12-1587, 1-12-1844 cons.
## NO. 12

- 14

- 00224

- CV

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT

TYLER, TEXAS

ELIZABETH CLOUD, LAR ISSA KING,
ROSE MIER, MADOLYNN MIER,
AND BENJAMIN MIER,

APPELLANT

S

V.

JULIUS NORRIS AND AL LSTATE
INSURANCE COMPANY,

APPELLEE S §

§

§ APPEAL FROM THE 402N D

JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT

WOOD COUNTY, TEXAS

MEMORANDUM OPINION

PER CURIAM
Appellant s have filed a n unopposed motion to dismiss this appeal alleging that there is no

longer an issue in controversy between Appellants and Appell ees. Appellants have complied

with the requirements of Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 42.1(a)(1) permitting voluntary

dismissal of an appeal on an appellant’s motion. Accordingly, Appellant’s motion is granted,

and the appeal is dismissed

. See T EX

. R

. A PP

. P. 42. 1 (a) (1)

. Opinion delivered September 17, 2014.

Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle, J.

( PUBLISH )

## COURT OF APPEALS

TWELFTH COURT OF APPEALS DISTRICT OF TEXAS

JUDGMENT

S EPTEMBER 17 , 2014

NO. 12

- 14

- 00224

- CV

ELIZABETH CLOUD, LAR ISSA KING, ROSE MIER

, MADOLYNN MIER, AND B ENJAMIN MIER,

Appellant s

V.

JULIUS NORRIS AND AL LSTATE INSURANCE COM PANY, Appellee s

Appeal from the 402nd District Court

of Wood County, Texas (Tr.Ct.N o. 2012

- 090)

THIS CAUSE came on to be heard on the motion of the Appellant to dismiss

the appeal herein, and the same being considered, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED and

DECREED by this Court that the motion to dismiss be granted and the appeal be dismiss ed, and

that the decision be certified to the court below for observance.

By per curiam opinion

. Panel consisted of Worthen, C.J., Griffith, J., and Hoyle , J

.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

DAVID RUSSELL POSEY,

Petitioner

v.

OFFICE OF JUDICIAL RECORDS,

Respondent :

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

: No. 58 EM 2023

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW , this 5 th day of December , 2023, the “Petition for Review” and the

“Petition for Leave to File Post Submission Communication” are DENIED.
THIRD SUPPLEMENT DATED MARCH 20, 2001 TO THE

                      CONFIDENTIAL ASSIGNMENT SUMMARY DATED

                                DECEMBER 7, 2000

                 TEXAS LITHOTRIPSY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP VII, L.P.

                  Lithotripters,  Inc., a North Carolina corporation  ("Litho"),
by  this  Third  Supplement  hereby  amends  and  supplements  its  Confidential
Assignment  Summary dated December 7, 2000, as amended (the "Summary").  Persons
who have subscribed for or are considering an investment in the Units offered by
the Summary should carefully review this Third Supplement.

Extension of the Offering

                  Pursuant to the  authority  given to Litho in the Summary,  it
hereby  elects to extend the  offering  termination  date to April 24,  2001 (or
earlier in the  discretion  of Litho,  upon the sale of all Units as provided in
the Summary).
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          JUN-30-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1999
<CASH>                                              425,000
<SECURITIES>                                              0
<RECEIVABLES>                                       221,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        (43,000)
<INVENTORY>                                         215,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                    944,000
<PP&E>                                            1,137,000
<DEPRECIATION>                                      324,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                    1,771,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                             4,333,000
<BONDS>                                                   0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                             1,587,000
<PREFERRED>                                         752,000
<COMMON>                                         17,816,000
<OTHER-SE>                                      (22,742,000)
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                      1,771,000
<SALES>                                                   0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                  1,424,000
<CGS>                                             1,028,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                     6,193,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                      5,000
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                          0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                1,528,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  (5,485,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                              0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (6,292,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                      807,000
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                           0
<CHANGES>                                                 0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (5,485,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                           (0.51)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                         (0.51)


</TABLE>
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-2018-0025-4855

Arrowhead Electrical 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 this particular product is available 

only from China.

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