alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 22, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 15165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-7046]



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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration


National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health; 
Full Committee Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that the National Advisory Committee on 
Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH), established under section 7(a) 
of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 U.S.C. 656) to 
advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services on matters relating to the administration of the Act, will 
meet on April 10 and 11, 1995, in Room N3437 A-D of the Department of 
Labor Building located at 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. 
The meeting is open to the public and will begin at 8:30 a.m. each day 
lasting until approximately 4 p.m. on April 10 and 3 p.m. on April 11.
    Agenda items will include overviews of activities of both the 
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the National 
Institute for Safety and Health (NIOSH), a legislative update, and 
discussions on occupational safety and health programs.
    Written data, views or comments for consideration by the committee 
may be submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to Joanne Goodell at the 
address provided below. Any such submissions received prior to the 
meeting will be provided to the members of the Committee and will be 
included in the record of the meeting. Anyone wishing to make an oral 
presentation should notify Joanne Goodell before the meeting. The 
request should state the amount of time desired, the capacity in which 
the person will appear and a brief outline of the content of the 
presentation. Persons who request the opportunity to address the 
Advisory Committee may be allowed to speak to the extent time permits, 
at the discretion of the Chair of the Advisory Committee. Individuals 
with disabilities who need special accommodations should contact Tom 
Hall by April 3 at the address indicated below.
    An official record of the meeting will be available for public 
inspection through Tom Hall, Division of Consumer Affairs, Room N-3647, 
200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone 202-219-
8615.
    For additional information contact: Joanne Goodell, Directorate of 
Policy, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3641, 200 
Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20210, telephone 202-219-8021.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 17th day of March 1995.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 95-7046 Filed 3-21-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M
#### David Tuller, Respondent, v Nancy Tuller, Appellant.

Kane, J. P.

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order of the Supreme Court (Benson, J.), entered January 31, 1989 in Dutchess County, which granted plaintiffs motion to deem the action abandoned.

In August 1984, plaintiff commenced this action in which both parties sought, *inter alia,*a judgment of divorce. Plaintiff later withdrew his complaint and the matter went to trial on defendant’s counterclaims. By decision filed February 20, 1987, Supreme Court granted defendant, *inter alia,*a divorce, support, maintenance and equitable distribution, and directed the submittal of a judgment on notice in accordance with its decision. Defendant’s counsel thereafter requested a conference with the court to clarify part of the decision. The conference occurred in March 1987 and, although defendant’s counsel apparently indicated he would fashion a remedial motion, none was forthcoming. Defendant eventually submitted a judgment of divorce in October 1988. Plaintiff thereafter moved for an order deeming the court’s decision abandoned by reason of defendant’s failure to submit the judgment thereon for signature within the prescribed 60 days *(see,*22 NYCRR 202.48). Defendant opposed the motion, pointing to a lack of prejudice to plaintiff and arguing that because the decision was confusing "it was extremely difficult to submit our Final Judgment”. Supreme Court found defendant’s explanation insufficient and granted plaintiff’s motion. Defendant now appeals.

We affirm. The sole issue before us is whether defendant’s late submission of the proposed judgment is excusable. The pertinent rule requires that proposed judgments "must be submitted for signature, unless otherwise directed by the court, within 60 days after signing and filing of the decision directing that the order be settled or submitted” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [a]). Failure to comply "shall be deemed an abandonment of the * * * action, unless for good cause shown” (22 NYCRR 202.48 [b]; *see, Seeman v Seeman,*154 AD2d 584). Although signing an untimely order or judgment is within the discretion of the court *(see, Town of Virgil v Ford,*160 AD2d 1073), the party submitting it bears the burden of establishing *802the requisite "good cause” for delay *(see, Stanley v City of New York,*157 AD2d 466, 467). Demonstrating lack of prejudice to the other side does not constitute good cause *(see,*Siegel, NY St L Dig, No. 326, Feb. 1987). Likewise, in the case at bar, we cannot find good cause in the alleged confusion or difficulty that defendant’s counsel encountered in drawing a judgment upon Supreme Court’s decision. The case involved a fairly typical matrimonial action and we find nothing in Supreme Court’s 14-page decision that would require the approximately 20 months that defendant’s counsel took to submit the judgment. Although we recognize with regret the burden imposed on defendant by abandonment, Supreme Court’s order is well within the parameters of its discretion and should be affirmed.

Order affirmed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Weiss, Levine, Mercure and Harvey, JJ., concur.
Organization Name:

Note: Representatives submitting on behalf of an organization must enter information below.

Requestor Representative:

Section 301 Investigation: China's Acts, Policies, and Practices Related to Technology 

Transfer, Intellectual Property, and Innovation - Form to Request Exclusion of Product

When submitting a product exclusion request using this form, enter the specified 

information in the following fields and explain the basis and rationale for your statements. 

By completing this form, you certify that the information provided is complete and 

correct to the best of your knowledge. 

1. Indicate whether the comment contains business confidential information (BCI), is a public

document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

3.

2. Please provide a complete and detailed description of the product of concern:

4.

5. Requestor's relationship to the product:

CONTINUED BELOW

*

10-digit HTSUS item number* for product you wish to address in this product exclusion request:

Use numerical characters only with no special characters (example: 1023456789). For help in finding 

the HTSUS item number associated with your product, see https://hts.usitc.gov/

1

7.

6. Does this submission in regulations.gov include additional attachments?

Please indicate whether any additional attachment contains business confidential

information (BCI), is a public document, or is a public version of a BCI document.

VERSION 1

Requestor Information

Requestor Name (Last, First):

Public Version of BCI

HCL504, 62 ton Capacity, 3.94 in Stroke, Single-Acting, High Tonnage, Lock Nut Hydraulic Cylinder; 

Maximum Operating Pressure psi: 10000; Weight Kgs: 22; Oil Capacity Advance cm3: 785; Stroke 

Ranges mm: 95 - 119

8412210075 Schmidt, Jackie Enerpac Jackie SchmidtImporter Yes Contains BCI
END 2

8. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in the United States?:

VERSION 1

11. Please provide information in support your request, taking account of the instructions

provided in Section B of the Federal Register notice (note: text entered below can extend

beyond the apparent size of this box).

9. Is this product, or a comparable product, available from sources in third countries?:

10. Please provide the value and quantity (with units) of the Chinese-origin product of concern

that you purchased for each calendar year specified. Limit this figure to the products

purchased by your firm (or by members of your trade association) alone. Please provide 

estimates if precise figures are unavailable.

2016 Value:

2015 Value:

2017 Value:

2016 Quantity:

2015 Quantity:

2017 Quantity:

No No BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI BCI

See addendum for additional information.
Electronically Filed Supreme Court SCWC-12-0000877 15-MAY-2015 01:58 PM

SCWC-12-0000877 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF HAWAI ' I
WENDELL H. JENKINS, Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant,

vs. STATE OF HAWAI ' I, Respondent/Respondent-Appellee.

CERTIORARI TO THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS (CAAP-12-0000877; S.P.P. NO. 08-1-0025; CR. NO. 96-0127) ORDER REJECTING APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI (By: Recktenwald, C.J., Nakayama, and Wilson, JJ., Circuit Judge

Crabtree, in place of McKenna, J., recused, and Circuit Judge Ochiai, in place of Pollack, J., recused) Petitioner/Petitioner-Appellant Wendell H. Jenkins’s Application for Writ of Certiorari filed on April 1, 2015, is hereby rejected. DATED: Honolulu, Hawai ' i, May 15, 2015. Wendell H. Jenkins, petitioner pro se /s/ Mark E. Recktenwald /s/ Paula A. Nakayama /s/ Michael D. Wilson /s/ Jeffrey P. Crabtree /s/ Dean E. Ochiai
#### In the Interest of A.B., Respondent, v. J.B., Appellant. Interest of K.Z., Respondent, v. J.B. et al., Appellant.

Nos. 65837, 65838.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Two.

March 14, 1995.

Theodore Ralph Allen, Jr., Hillsboro, for respondent in Interest of A.B. and K.Z.

Joseph S. Sanchez, Festus, for appellant J.B.

Before SMITH, P.J., and PUDLOWSKI and WHITE, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

J.B. appeals the trial court's judgments terminating her parental rights to A.B. and K.Z. No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. The judgments are affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
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 JayHawk Energy, Inc. a Colorado
corporation (the "Company") on Form 10-QSB for the period ending December 31,
2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the "Report"), Joseph B. Young, Chief Financial Officer of the Company,
certifies to the best of his knowledge, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as
adopted pursuant to § 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 result of operations of the
Company.





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








By:/s/
Joseph B. Young


Joseph B.
Young


Chief
Financial Officer


February
13, 2008
Order entered July 21 , 2015

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 15
- 00548
- CR No. 05
- 15
- 00549
- CR
DADRIANNE NICHOLE TU RNER, Appellant

V. THE STATE OF TEXAS, Appellee On Appeal from the Criminal District Court No. 1

Dallas County, Texas Trial Court Cause No s . F11
- 70784
- H , F13
- 55178
- H



### O RDER
The Court REINSTATES the appeals. On July 13, 2015, we ordered the trial court to make findings regarding whether the record of the April 2, 2015 hearing had been lost or destroyed. On July 20, 2015, court reporter Gina Udall filed the record of the April 2, 2015 hearing. Therefore, in the interest of expediting the appeal, we VACATE the July 13, 2015 order requiring findings. Appellant’s brief is due within thirty days of the date of this order.

/s/ ADA BROWN JUSTICE
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

March 15, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number: USTR-2018-0025-3826

Academy, Ltd:

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
##### 



Exhibit 32.1
 AMSURG CORP.
 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002
  (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/ Ken P. McDonaldKen P. McDonald
President and
Chief Executive Officer of the CompanyFebruary 27, 2007/s/ Claire M. GulmiClaire M. Gulmi
Executive Vice President and
Chief Financial Officer of the CompanyFebruary 27, 2007
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 66 (Thursday, April 6, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17438]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-8475]



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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 107


Small Business Investment Companies; Accounting and Financial 
Reporting Standards

AGENCY: Small Business Administration.

ACTION: Interim final rule; reopening of comment period.

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

SUMMARY: On February 7, 1995, the Small Business Administration (SBA) 
published an interim final rule which updated the standards for 
accounting and financial reporting by Small Business Investment 
Companies (SBICs), as well as the guidelines for independent public 
accountants performing audits of SBIC financial statements. The interim 
final rule established a final date for comments to be submitted to SBA 
of March 9, 1995. SBA is reopening that comment period until April 30, 
1995.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 30, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to Robert D. Stillman, 
Associate Administrator for Investment, Small Business Administration, 
Suite 6300, 409 3rd Street SW., 6th floor, Washington, DC 20416.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carol Fendler, Office of Program 
Support; telephone no. (202) 205-7559.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: SBA published an interim final rule on 
February 7, 1995 (60 FR 7392) which updated and reorganized the 
accounting standards for the SBIC program. The purpose of the revisions 
was to reflect recent changes in the SBIC program mandated by the Small 
Business Investment Act of 1958, as amended, as well as changes in 
generally accepted accounting principles.
    The publication of the interim final rule took place at a time when 
many SBICs were in the midst of preparing their audited year end 
financial statements. Thus, a number of SBICs and their independent 
public accountants may not have had sufficient time to review the rule 
and to prepare and submit comments to SBA. Therefore, the comment 
period is hereby reopened and SBA will accept comments on the interim 
final rule until April 30, 1995.

    Dated: March 31, 1995.
Philip Lader,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 95-8475 Filed 4-5-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-M
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
DECEMMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-K AND IS QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO
SUCH DECEMBER 31, 1997 FORM 10-K FILING.
</LEGEND>

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                       1,065,274
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  111,108
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             1,267,043
<PP&E>                                      43,406,356
<DEPRECIATION>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                              49,303,530
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        3,110,234
<BONDS>                                     13,197,173
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                         3,947
<OTHER-SE>                                  26,587,487
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                49,303,530
<SALES>                                      1,135,855
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             4,073,149
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                1,382,056
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              2,691,093
<INCOME-TAX>                                 1,070,544
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          1,620,549
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                 85,771
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 1,706,320
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.64
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.48


</TABLE>
## F IRST 

## D ISTRICT 

## C OURT OF 

## A PPEAL 

## S TATE OF 

## F LORIDA

_____________________________
No. 1D 17

- 4871

_____________________________
M ICHAEL A ARON A NDERSON , Appellant,

v.

D EPARTMENT OF C ORRECTIONS , Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Ci rcuit Court for Leon County

. James O. Shelfer , Judge

. October 3, 2018

P ER C URIAM

. Based on Appellee’s confession of error, the Order of Dismissal is vacated and this cause is remanded for further proceedings. See Jackson v. McDonough , 28 So. 3d 61 (Fla. 1st DCA 2006).

W OLF , K ELSEY , and J AY , JJ., concur

.

_____________________________ Not final until disposition of any timely and authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 9.331

.

_____________________________2 Michael Aaron Anderson, pro se
, Appe llant.

Pamela Jo Bondi, Attorney General, and Kristen J. Lonergan, Assistant Attorney General, Tallahassee
, for Appellee.
Exhibit
4.5


 


List of Omitted Warrants to Purchase Common Stock


(GI Partners)


 


1.                                       Warrant to
Purchase Common Stock between GI Partners Fund III, L.P. and the Company in the
amount of 1,034,230 shares, pursuant to an assignment of 44,520 shares to GI
Partners Fund III-B, L.P.


 


2.                                       Warrant to
Purchase Common Stock between GI Partners Fund III-A, L.P. and the Company in
the amount of 27,099 shares, pursuant to an assignment of 1,026 shares to GI
Partners Fund III-B, L.P.


 


3.                                       Warrant to
Purchase Common Stock between GI Partners Fund III-B, L.P. and the Company in
the amount of 188,671 shares, pursuant to an assignment of 44,520 additional
shares from GI Partners Fund III, L.P. and 1,026 additional shares from GI
Partners III-A, L.P.
#### Stephen A. HILL, Appellant, v. ST. CHARLES COUNTY MERIT SYSTEM COMMISSION et al., Respondent.

No. 68762.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Jan. 2, 1996.

E. Darrell Davis, Jr., St. Charles, for appellant.

Stephanie Karr Gastman, St. Charles, for respondent.

Before SMITH, P.J., GARY M. GAERTNER and RHODES RUSSELL, JJ.

*SUMMARY ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals a judgment of the St. Charles County Circuit Court which affirmed a decision of the St. Charles County Merit System Commission recommending certain disciplinary actions in relation to his employment with the St. Charles County Sheriffs Department. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the record on appeal and find the judgment is supported by substantial evidence and is not against the weight of the evidence. No error of law appears. A detailed opinion would have no precedential value. The trial court’s judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
ATTORNEY GRIEVANCE COMMISSION 

OF MARYLAND 

Petitioner, 

IN THE 

COURT OF APPEALS 

OF MARYLAND 

Misc. Docket AG No. 39 

V. 

September Term, 2017 

MICHAEL DAVID DOBBS 

Respondent. 

ORDER 

Upon consideration of the Petition for Disciplinary or Remedial Action filed by 

Petitioner pursuant to Maryland Rules 19-721(a)(2) and 19-738 and the Respondent's 

response to the Court's Order to Show Cause, if any, it is 3rd day of January 

2017, by the Court of Appeals of Maryland; 

ORDERED, that the Respondent, Michael David Dobbs, be and hereby is 

temporarily suspended from the practice of law in the State of Maryland pursuant to 

Maryland Rule 19-738(d) until further order of this Court; and it is further 

ORDERED, that the Clerk of this Court shall remove the name of Michael David 

Dobbs from the register of attorneys in this Court and certify that fact to the Trustees of 

the Client Protection Fund of the Bar of Maryland and all Clerks of all judicial tribunals in 

this State in accordance with Maryland Rule 19-761(b). 

/s/ Clayton Greene Jr. 

Senior Judge