alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 17526]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8433]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. RP95-214-000]


Colorado Interstate Gas Company; Notice of Tariff Compliance 
Filing

March 31, 1995.
    Take notice that on March 28, 1995, Colorado Interstate Gas Company 
(CIG), tendered for filing as part of its FER Gas Tariff, First Revised 
Volume No. 1, the following tariff sheets, with an effective date of 
April 1, 1995:

First Revised Sheet No. 369A
First Revised Sheet No. 369B

    CIG states that the above-referenced tariff sheets are being filed 
to reflect that all Buyers have paid in full for obligations pursuant 
to Docket Nos. RP94-85 and RP94-130. (Docket Nos. RP94-85 and RP94-130 
are the latest dockets where CIG has sought recovery of take-or-pay 
``buyout'' or ``buydown'' costs pursuant to the Commission's Order No. 
528.)
    CIG states that copies of this filing were served upon all parties 
in this proceeding and affected state commissions.
    Any person desiring to be heard or to protest said filing should 
file a motion to intervene or a protest with the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 825 North Capitol Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426, in accordance with Secs. 385.211 and 385.214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211). All such 
petitions or protests should be filed on or before April 7, 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. 95-8433 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

NO. 03-17-00500-CV

Solomon Lemuel Perry, Appellant

v.

New Penn Financial; Austin Police Department; Constable Precinct 5;

Bharath Vasudevan; and Hill Country Property Management, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. D-1-GN-17-002498, HONORABLE TIM SULAK, JUDGE PRESIDING

M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Solomon Lemuel Perry has filed a pro se notice of appeal from an order

granting a temporary restraining order signed by the district court on July 17, 2017. On August 17,

2017, this Court requested appellant to inform it of the basis on which this Court may exercise

jurisdiction over the appeal. The Court requested that appellant respond by August 28, 2017, and

appellant was warned that a failure to respond would result in the dismissal of this appeal. As of 1

this date, the Court has received no response from appellant.

Generally, appellate courts have jurisdiction over appeals taken from final judgments

and interlocutory orders the Texas Legislature has deemed appealable. A judgment is final if it 2

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c).

1

City of Watauga v. Gordon, 434 S.W.3d 586, 588 (Tex. 2014); Lehmann v. Har-Con Corp.,

2

39 S.W.3d 191, 195 (Tex. 2001).
finally disposes of all remaining parties and claims based on the record of the case. A temporary 3

restraining order, however, is generally not an appealable judgment. No statute authorizes litigants 4

to take an interlocutory appeal from an order granting or denying a temporary restraining order.

5

After a thorough review of the record, we find no basis for exercising jurisdiction. Accordingly, we

dismiss the appeal.6

___________________________________________

Bob Pemberton, Justice

Before Chief Justice Rose, Justices Pemberton and Goodwin

Dismissed for Want of Jurisdiction

Filed: November 2, 2017

 Lehmann, 39 S.W.3d at 200. 3

In re Office of Attorney Gen., 257 S.W.3d 695, 698 (Tex. 2008) (orig. proceeding); In re 4

Texas Nat. Res. Conservation Comm’n, 85 S.W.3d 201, 205 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding).

 See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 51.014 (listing appealable interlocutory orders). 5

 See Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a), (c).

6

2
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 58 (Monday, March 27, 1995)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15742-15743]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7393]



=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15743]]

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

50 CFR Part 640

[I.D. 032095B]


Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; 
Amendment 4

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Notice of availability of an amendment to a fishery management 
plan; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: NMFS announces that the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic 
Fishery Management Councils have submitted Amendment 4 to the Fishery 
Management Plan for the Spiny Lobster Fishery of the Gulf of Mexico and 
South Atlantic for review, approval, and implementation by NMFS. 
Written comments are requested from the public.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before May 18, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed to the Southeast Regional Office, 
NMFS, 9721 Executive Center Drive N., St. Petersburg, FL 33702.
    Requests for copies of Amendment 4 and supporting documents should 
be sent to the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council, 5401 W. 
Kennedy Boulevard, Suite 331, Tampa, FL 33609-2486, FAX: 813-225-7015, 
or to the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council, 1 Southpark 
Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407-4699, FAX: 803-769-4520.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Georgia Cranmore, 813-570-5305.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Magnuson Fishery Conservation and 
Management Act (Magnuson Act) requires that a council-prepared 
amendment to a fishery management plan be submitted to NMFS for review 
and approval, disapproval, or partial disapproval. The Magnuson Act 
also requires that NMFS, upon receiving an amendment, immediately 
publish a notice that the amendment is available for public review and 
comment. NMFS will consider public comment in determining approvability 
of the amendment.
    Amendment 4 would allow the harvest of spiny lobster year-round and 
establish a daily bag or possession limit of two spiny lobster per 
person in the exclusive economic zone off North Carolina, South 
Carolina, and Georgia.
    Proposed regulations to implement Amendment 4 are scheduled for 
publication within 15 days.

    Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.

    Dated: March 21, 1995.

David S. Crestin,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, 
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 95-7393 Filed 3-22-95; 10:57 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Order entered August 1, 2017

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 17
- 00169
- CR No. 05
- 17
- 001 70
- CR MANUEL FINO, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 7

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F16
- 30419
- Y & F16
- 30420
- Y



### O RDER On June 16, 2017, the Court granted the requests of court reporter s Vearneas Faggett and Trashuna Salaam for addition time to file the reporter ’s record , making the reporter’s record due July 16, 2017. To date, no reporter’s record has been filed, and we have had no communication from either court reporter regarding the record in these appeals.
We O R DER court reporters Vearneas Faggett and Tras huna Salaam to file the complete reporter’s records in these appeals within FOURTEEN DAYS from the date of this order. We caution Ms. Faggett and Ms. Salaam that the failure to file the reporter’s record by that time will result in the Court taking whatev er remedies it has available, including ordering that they not sit until the complete reporter’s record in these appeals is filed.We DIRECT the Clerk to send copies of this order to the Presiding Judge, Criminal

District Court No. 7; to Verneas Faggett, t he official court reporter of the Criminal District Court No. 7; to Trashuna Salaam, court reporter ; and to counsel for all parties.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
Exhibit 15.2





            CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM

     We consent to the incorporation by reference in the following  Registration
     Statements:

          1.   Registration  Statement  on Form  F-3  (File  No.  333-9050),

          2.   Registration Statement on Form F-3 (File No. 333-123265),

          of our report dated February 13, 2005 with respect to the consolidated
          financial  statements  and  schedule of Magal  Security  Systems  Ltd.
          included in this Annual Report (Form 20-F) for the year ended December
          31, 2004.




                                            /s/Kost Forer Gabbay and Kasierer
Tel-Aviv, Israel                               KOST FORER GABBAY & Kasierer
June 28, 2005                                  A Member of Ernst & Young Global
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 17, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-2101

GHL International, 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/%2434_Billion_Exclusions_Gr

anted_September.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 products covered by a specially drafted description contained in the annex to 

the product exclusion notice. 

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,

Joseph Barloon

General Counsel
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1




                          INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' CONSENT


We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements File
Nos. 333-11067, 333-15907, 333-17021, 333-23035, 333-37247, 333-37383,
333-41603, 333-58045, 333-68505, 333-76379, 333-76757, 333-82134, 333-82569,
333-84419, 333-88813, 333-88819, and 333-91621 of General Growth Properties,
Inc. on Form S-3 and the Registration Statements on File Nos. 33-79372,
333-07241, 333-11237, 333-28449, 333-74461 and 333-79737 of General Growth
Properties, Inc. on Form S-8 of our report dated February 3, 2003 (which
expresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating
to the change in method of accounting for derivative instruments and hedging
activities in 2001 described in Note 13) appearing in this Annual Report on Form
10-K of General Growth Properties, Inc. for the years ended December 31, 2002
and 2001. We also consent to the incorporation by reference of our report dated
February 3, 2003 relating to the financial statement schedule, which appears in
this Form 10-K.


Deloitte & Touche LLP


Chicago, Illinois
March 13, 2003
<PAGE>
                                                                    Exhibit 99.1


                            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 Annual Report of Suite101.com, Inc. (the Company) on Form
10-KSB for the year ending December 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, Mitchell G. Blumberg,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18
U.S.C. ss.1350, as adopted pursuant to ss.906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,
that:

         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.



/s/ Mitchell G. Blumberg
----------------------------------------
Mitchell G. Blumberg
President and Chief Executive Officer
March 28, 2003

                                       41
#### In re Marriage of Jean BAKER and Robert J. Baker. Jean BAKER, Petitioner/Appellant, v. Robert J. BAKER, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 65834.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

May 30, 1995.

Aaron S. Dubin, Vines, Frankel, Rubin, Bond & Dubin, Clayton, for appellant.

Robert J. Baker, Hazelwood, pro se.

Sarah S. Pleban, Greenburg, Pleban & Fleming, St. Louis, guardian ad litem.

Before CRANE, P.J., and CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

This is an appeal from the trial court’s order denying petitioner’s cross-motion to modify, assessing costs, and awarding a guardian ad litem fee. The trial court’s judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. *Murphy v. Carron,*536 S.W.2d 30, 32 (Mo. banc 1976).

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
#### Timothy O’Connor, Respondent, v Lawrence Hospital et al., Appellant.

Order of the Supreme Court, Bronx County (Jack Turret, J.), entered on September 26, 1989, denying defendants’ motion and two cross motions for a change of venue from Bronx County to Orange or Westchester County, is unanimously affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

Venue was properly laid in the Bronx based upon the residence of infant plaintiff and his mother *(see, Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group,*161 AD2d 166; *Torriero v Austin Truck Rental,*143 AD2d 595). The situs of the alleged malpractice, relied upon by defendants, is but one matter to consider and is not determinative of venue. We have reviewed the relevant factors regarding the venue of this action and find that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion for a change of venue *(see, Coles v LaGuardia Med. Group, supra; Moghazeh v Valdes-Rodriguez,*151 AD2d 428; *Firoozan v Key Food Supermarket,*151 AD2d 334; *Wecht v Glen Distribs. Co.,*112 AD2d 891). Concur— Murphy, P. J., Ross, Milonas, Kassal and Wallach, JJ.
#### STATE of Missouri, Respondent, v. Michael WINGS, Appellant.

No. 67034.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

Jan. 30, 1996.

D. Warren Hoff, Jr., Clayton, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Mary Moulton Bryan, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRAHAN, P.J., CRANDALL and DOWD, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Defendant appeals the judgment upon his conviction by a jury of one count of sale of a controlled substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, and one count of delivery of a controlled *75substance, § 195.211, RSMo 1994, for which he was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms of imprisonment. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the claims of error to be without merit. An opinion reciting the detañed facts and restating the principles of law would have no precedential value. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 30.25(b).
<PAGE>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 99.1



      CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND 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, Ted Meisel, 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 of
Overture Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Overture Services, Inc.


                                    By: /s/ TED MEISEL
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Ted Meisel
                                    Title: President and Chief Executive Officer



I, Todd Tappin, 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 of
Overture Services, Inc. on Form 10-Q for the fiscal quarter ended September 30,
2002 fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Quarterly
Report on Form 10-Q fairly presents in all material respects the financial
condition and results of operations of Overture Services, Inc.


                                    By: /s/ TODD TAPPIN
                                       -----------------------------------------
                                    Name:  Todd Tappin
                                    Title: Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1



Certification of CEO

Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002

(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)



Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350,
chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), the undersigned officer of Gateway, Inc., a Delaware corporation (Gateway), does hereby certify, to such officers knowledge, that:



The Annual Report on Form 10-K/A (Amendment No. 1) for the
year ended December 31, 2001 (the Form 10-K/A) of Gateway fully complies with the financial requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-K/A fairly presents,
in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Gateway.



|Dated: April 14, 2003 |  | By: |  | /s/    THEODORE W. WAITT                            
|--------------------- |  | --- |  | ----------------------------------------------------
|                      |  |     |  | Theodore W. Waitt Chairman & Chief Executive Officer
#### Betty Brown et al., Appellants, v New York Medical College for Comprehensive Health Practice et al., Respondents.

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (John Tenney, J.), entered December 5, 1988, which dismissed plaintiffs complaint, at the close of their case, for failure to prove a prima facie case and which granted judgment in favor of defendants against plaintiffs, is unanimously affirmed, without costs.

The trial court properly granted defendants’ motion for a directed verdict in defendants’ favor at the close of plaintiffs’ case. The evidence adduced at trial revealed that plaintiff Betty Brown, an obese woman in her fifties, was a patient of Drs. Raymond Simon and Greta Daun, who worked out of the New York Medical College for Comprehensive Health Practice (Center).

In October 1982 plaintiff appeared for an unscheduled visit at the Center and was attended to by Dr. Daun. Plaintiff was directed to enter an examining room where she underwent an electrocardiogram. Before and after the examination, the plaintiff undressed and dressed herself in privacy. Plaintiff, who exhibited no problems nor requested any assistance to get dressed, attempted to sit down on a physician’s stool which was positioned against the wall of the examining room to put on her clothing. Previously, she had sat on a patient’s chair. According to plaintiff, she had not noticed that the stool had any wheels and it "shot out from under” her. Upon her fall, plaintiff fractured her knee and commenced this negligence action on the theory that defendants acted negligently due to their failure to warn her about the presence of the dangerous instrumentality of the stool.

Upon review of the record, we find that the complaint was properly dismissed. Here, plaintiffs failed to produce any evidence that the stool was a dangerous instrumentality. There was no expert testimony introduced to show that the stool, as designed for physicians, was a dangerous instrument, or constituted a hidden danger to plaintiff so as to require defendants to give her special notice or warning with respect to said object. *(See, Bua v Fernandez,*15 NY2d 664, *revg on dissenting mem at App Div*21 AD2d 887, 888.) Also there was no evidence that Dr. Daun knew plaintiff was going to use the stool. Furthermore, there is no duty to warn against a condi*140tion that can be readily observed by the reasonable use of one’s senses. *(Olsen v State of New York,*30 AD2d 759, *affd*25 NY2d 665.) Plaintiff herself testified that she attempted to sit on the stool without observing if it had a back, arms or wheels and without putting her hand out to hold it. Under the facts of this case, plaintiff’s failure to establish the element of duty to warn proved fatal.

We have considered plaintiffs other contentions and find them to be without merit. Concur—Murphy, P. J., Sullivan, Ross, Asch and Smith, JJ.