alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 74 (Tuesday, April 18, 1995)]
[Notices]
[Page 19462]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-9499]



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


UNITED STATES INFORMATION AGENCY

Culturally Significant Objects Imported for Exhibition; 
Determination

    Notice is hereby given of the following determination: Pursuant to 
the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 
985, 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978 (43 FR 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 FR 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to be 
included in the exhibit, ``Piet Mondrian: 1872-1944'' (See List\1\), 
imported from abroad for the temporary exhibition without profit within 
the United States, are of cultural significance. These objects are 
imported pursuant to a loan agreement with the foreign lenders. I also 
determine that the temporary exhibition or display of the listed 
exhibit objects at the National Gallery of Art, Washington, D.C. from 
on or about June 11,1995 through September 4, 1995, and the Museum of 
Modern Art, New York, N.Y. from on or about January 23, 1996 is in the 
national interest. Public Notice of this determination is ordered to be 
published in the Federal Register.

    \1\A copy of this list may be obtained by contacting Mr. Paul W. 
Manning, Assistant General Counsel, at (202) 619-5997, and the 
address is Room 700, U.S. Information Agency, 301 Fourth Street, 
S.W., Washington, D.C. 20547.

    Dated: April 12, 1995.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 95-9499 Filed 4-17-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
Exhibit 99.6

Press Release

INTERPOOL TO CELEBRATE TEN YEARS ON NYSE AT BELL RINGING CEREMONY

PRINCETON, NJ, May 14, 2003 - Interpool, Inc. (NYSE:IPX)
announced that chairman and chief executive officer Martin Tuchman will
commemorate the 10th anniversary of Interpool's listing on the New York Stock
Exchange, (NYSE) by ringing the closing bell on Wednesday, May 14, 2003.

Mr. Tuchman commented, "The decision to list Interpool's shares on the New York
Stock Exchange remains one of the most important in the history of our company.
Our NYSE listing has provided Interpool with access to investors and capital
from around the globe, and has allowed our shareholders to enjoy the comfort and
confidence associated with a listing on the world's most recognized and
efficient stock exchange."

Interpool's common stock commenced trading on the NYSE on May
10, 1993. Since its initial public offering, over 33 million shares of IPX have
traded.

"We are proud to celebrate ten years of trading on the
NYSE, and look forward to continuing our relationship with the most respected
symbol of international commerce," Tuchman said.

Interpool is one of the world's leading suppliers of equipment
and services to the transportation industry. It is the largest lessor of
intermodal container chassis and a world-leading lessor of cargo containers used
in international trade. Interpool operates from over 240 locations throughout
the world.

This Press Release contains certain forward-looking statements
regarding future circumstances. These forward-looking statements are subject to
risks and uncertainties that could cause actual results to differ materially
from those contemplated in such forward-looking statements, including in
particular the risks and uncertainties described in the company's SEC filings.
The Company undertakes no obligation to publicly release any revisions to these
forward-looking statements to reflect events or circumstances after the date
hereof.

For Interpool Inc.
Contact:
Mitchell Gordon
Executive Vice President &
Chief Financial Officer
(212) 916-3284
mgordon@interpool.com
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 103 (Tuesday, June 1, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Pages 29270-29271]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11495]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Dental & Craniofacial Research; Notice of 
Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended, notice is hereby given of the following meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: NIDCR Special Grants Review Committee.
    Date: June 17-18, 2021.
    Time: 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.

[[Page 29271]]

    Place: National Institutes of Health, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, 
Bethesda, MD 20892 (Virtual Meeting).
    Contact Person: Latarsha J. Carithers, Scientific Review 
Officer, Scientific Review Branch, National Institute of Dental and 
Craniofacial Research, 6701 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, 
(301) 594-4859, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ed818c998c9f9e858cc38e8c9f849985889f9ead838485c38a829b"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="bad6dbcedbc8c9d2db94d9dbc8d3ced2dfc8c9fad4d3d294ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program No. 93.121, Oral 
Diseases and Disorders Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: May 26, 2021.
Melanie J. Pantoja,
Program Analyst, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. 2021-11495 Filed 5-28-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
f8k1009_x101-ener.htm


Exhibit 10.1 Soeciual Meeting of Directors

SPECIAL MEETING


OF THE


DIRECTORS


OF


ENERGIZ RENEWABLE, INC.


A FLORIDA CORPORATION












A special meeting of the Board of Directors of ENERGIZ RENEWABLE, INC. was held at 135 First Street, Keyport, NJ on the 6th day of May, 2010 at 8 o'clock A.M. pursuant to written waiver of notice thereof signed by all the directors, fixing said time and place.


 


David Brown acted as Chairman for said meeting and Edward T. Whelan served as Secretary of the meeting.


 


The Chairman stated that the purpose of the meeting was to:


 


Assign the Agency Agreement dated October 6, 2009 between Energiz International, Inc. having its European office at 33 Avenue Duquesne 75007 Paris, France and Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd. Having its head office at 18/3 Hanesiim Raanana Israel 43583, a copy of which has been distributed to the directors and is attached herein to the Company Energiz Renewable, Inc. for 3,000,000 newly issued of the Company to Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd.


 


The Chairman further presented to the Board a signed addendum to said Agency Agreement entered into on May 5, 2010 between Energiz International, Inc. and Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd., a copy of which has been distributed to the directors and is attached herein, to extend the Agreement to November 30,2010.






  





  











  






 


The Chairman read into the records that all directors of the Company were given prior notice of said meeting and signed a Waiver of Notice to said Special Meeting of the Directors dated May 5, 2010.


Upon motion, duly made, seconded and carried, it was:


 


RESOLVED, that the Company hereby agrees to having the Agency Agreement dated October 6, 2009 between Energiz International, Inc. having its European office at 33 Avenue Duquesne 75007 Paris, France and Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd. Having its head office at 18/3 Hanesiim Raanana Israel 43583, including the signed addendum to said Agency Agreement entered into on May 5,2010, extending the Agreement to November 30,2010, a copy of both agreements are attached herein and incorporated by reference, to be assigned to the Company Energiz Renewable, Inc. for 3,000,000 newly issued common shares of the Company to be issued to Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd.


 


RESOLVED that Edward T. Whelan is to instruct the Company's transfer agent to issue said 3,000,000 newly issued common shares of the Company to Environmental Energy Enterprise Ltd. immediately.


 


RESOLVED, that Edward T. Whelan is to instruct the Company's securities attorney to file an 8-K notice with the SEC. immediately thereafter.


There being no further business, the meeting upon motion adjourned.


 


BY: /s/Edward T. Whelan


       Edward T. Whelan, Director
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

IN RE:

APPOINTMENT TO MINOR JUDICIARY 

EDUCATION BOARD

:

:

:

:

No. 422

MAGISTERIAL RULES DOCKET

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1

st day of May, 2018, Douglas McCall Bell, Esquire, Somerset 

County, is hereby designated as a member of the Minor Judiciary Education Board for a 

term of three years, commencing July 1, 2018.
EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20508

September 26, 2019

RE: Product Exclusion Request Number USTR-2018-0025-6093

Peabody Energy Corporation:

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
---

---

Exhibit 32.2



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of PremierWest Bancorp (the "Company") on Form 10-K for the year ending December 31, 2005, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission
on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Tom Anderson, the Chief Financial Officer and Principal Accounting Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 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 for the period certified.
|  

This certification is being furnished solely to comply with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and shall not be incorporated by reference into any of the Company's filings under the Securities Act of 1933 or the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, or otherwise be deemed to be filed as part of the Report or under such Acts.

|Date: March 10, 2006 |  | /s/ TOM ANDERSON                     
|-------------------- |  | -------------------------------------
|                     |  | Tom Anderson                         
|                     |  | Chief Financial Officer and Principal
|                     |  | Accounting 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 for the year ended December 31, 2002 (the Form 10-K) 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 fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations
of Gateway.



|                     
|---------------------
|Dated: April 15, 2003
|                     
|
#### Tommy C. NUNLEY, Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

No. 66680.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

March 7, 1995.

Craig Allan Johnston, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before REINHARD, P.J., and GARY M. GAERTNER and CRAHAN, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Tommy C. Nunley, appeals from an order entered in the Circuit Court of Cape Girardeau County dismissing appellant’s motion under Rule 24.035 to vacate, set aside, or correct the judgment or sentence. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the judgment of the circuit court is based on findings of fact that are not clearly erroneous. As we find an extended opinion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the circuit court’s judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
<PAGE>   1

                                                                   EXHIBIT 10.19

July 10, 1996

Mr. Reed Horovitz
InfoMed
1180 SW 36th Avenue
Pompano Beach, FL 33069

SENT VIA FAX

Dear Reed:

     This letter outlines the terms and conditions of InfoMed's renewal of
System Maintenance for the MSM products as you and I have previously discussed.
This will become a part of the standard Micronetics VAR Agreement. To the extent
this document modifies anything contained in the standard Micronetics VAR
Agreement, is limited exclusively to the fees paid for Systems Maintenance on
MSM-UNIX licenses purchased by InfoMed for its use.

     1. Beginning July 1, 1996 through June 30, 1997 InfoMed will pay a fixed
fee of $10,500.00 per month for MSM-UNIX Systems Maintenance; regardless of the
number of MSM-UNIX licenses purchased from Micronetics for InfoMed's use.

     2. InfoMed will pay Micronetics $2,424.00 for Systems Maintenance on
MSM-UNIX licenses purchased from Micronetics between January 1, 1996 through
June 30, 1996.

     3. Systems Maintenance fees for all other MSM products purchased by InfoMed
will follow the standard Micronetics Systems Maintenance schedule as outlined in
the current Micronetics VAR Agreement.

     4. 30 days prior to June 30, 1997 Micronetics and InfoMed must have in
place an agreement that perpetuates the MSM-UNIX Systems Maintenance beyond June
30, 1997 permitting uninterrupted service to InfoMed. In the absence of an
agreement, then the standard terms and conditions of the Micronetics VAR
Agreement will take precedence. At such time it will automatically become in
effect to produce the appropriate fees to be paid to Micronetics for Systems
Maintenance on all MSM product licenses currently in inventory with InfoMed.

     5. The fixed fee of $10,500.00 is to be paid monthly and is due at
Micronetics by the beginning of each month. July's fixed fee payment together
with $2,424.00 equals a total due of $12,924.00 to be paid upon confirmation of
this agreement. Reed InfoMed will need to authorize a current standard VAR
Agreement. Where do you want me to send it? My phone number is 301-258-2605 ext.
529.

                                          Sincerely,

                                          /s/ DAVID G. LENHART
                                          --------------------------------------

                                          David G. Lenhart
                                          Manager, US Channel Marketing

cc: File
Exhibit 4.4, Nenad Bogdanovich Invoice, 10/17/2006


    
      

      

    

    Exhibit
      4.4

     

    
       

      NENAD
        BOGDANOVIC

      Sekspirova
        2

      21000
        Novi Sad

      Serbia

      phone
        381
        64 116 4303

      bness021@gmail.com

      
 

      
        	
                INVOICE

              	 

                

              


      

       

      
        	 	TO:	Cobalis
                Corp.


        	 	 	
                2445
                  McCabe Way, Suite 150, Irvine, CA
                  92614

              


      

      


      
        	 	
                DATE:

              	
                September
                  30, 2006

              


      

      


      
        	 	
                PROJECT:

              	
                MAINTAINING
                  THE COBALIS.COM

              


      

      
        	 	 	
                Maintenance
                  of cobalis.com website from October 1, 2006 till October 1,
                  2007

              


      

      


      
        	 	
                TOTAL
                  DUE:

              	
                $1425

              


      

      
 

      
        	 	 	
                This
                  invoice is payable upon receipt.

              


      

      


       

      


      THANK
        YOU

      


      


      1
#### Alodio BARRAZA, Jr., Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 892-87.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

June 20, 1990.

*655Nate Rhodes, Corpus Christi, for appellant.

Carlos Valdez, County Atty., Robert J. Gonzalez, Jay M. Wright, Asst. County At-tys., Corpus Christi, and Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW

PER CURIAM.

A jury found appellant, Alodio Barraza, Jr., guilty of driving while intoxicated. The trial court placed him on probation for two years and assessed a fine of $360.00. He appealed to the Corpus Christi Court of Appeals asserting the trial court had erred in refusing to grant his motion to quash the information because it failed to allege the manner of intoxication. The Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s denial of appellant’s motion to quash, *Barraza v. State,*733 S.W.2d 379, 382 (Tex.App.—Corpus Christi 1987), and we granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to examine the lower appellate court’s opinion. We affirm.

Appellant was charged by information with driving while intoxicated, conduct proscribed by Article 6701Z — 1, V.A.C.S. The information alleged that appellant “did then and there while intoxicated, drive and operate a motor vehicle in a public place.” “Intoxication” is defined by statute as:

> “(A) not having the normal use of mental or physical faculties by reason of the introduction of alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances into the body; or

> “(B) having an alcohol concentration of 0.10 or more.”

Recently in *Solis v. State,*787 S.W.2d 388 (Tex.Cr.App.1990), this Court held that a charging instrument need not allege which of the two ways a person is deemed to be intoxicated when charging an offense for driving while intoxicated. This Court determined:

> “Because the methods of proving intoxication by alcohol are set out statutorily and do not depend on any conduct committed by a defendant, other than introduction of alcohol into the body — which was already alleged — the State need not specify in the charging instrument whether it will use loss of faculties or alcohol content to prove the offense.” 787 S.W.2d at 391.

Accord *State v. Winskey,*790 S.W.2d 641 (Tex.Cr.App.1990). But see *Garcia v. State,*747 S.W.2d 379, 381 (Tex.Cr.App. 1988) (charging instrument alleging offense under Article 6701l-1, V.A.C.S., subject to defendant’s motion to quash for its failure to allege, either singularly or in the disjunctive, the specific intoxicant, i.e., “alcohol, a controlled substance, a drug, or a combination of two or more of those substances”).

As such, the Court of Appeals correctly decided the trial court in this case did not err in refusing to quash the information for its failure to allege only one of the two ways in which appellant was intoxicated. The Court of Appeals’ opinion is affirmed.

TEAGUE, J., dissents.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-23-00805-CV

THE STATE OF TEXAS FOR THE BEST INTEREST AND PROTECTION OF L.M.

From the Probate Court No. 1, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2023MH02104

Honorable Oscar J. Kazen, Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE ALVAREZ, AND JUSTICE CHAPA

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, this appeal is DISMISSED. It is 

ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal because appellant 

qualifies as indigent under Rule 20 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure. See TEX. R. APP.

P. 20. The clerk of the court shall issue the mandate instanter. See id. at R. 18.1(c).

SIGNED October 4, 2023.

_________________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

STATE OF FLORIDA

_____________________________

No. 1D18-2001

_____________________________

R.H., Mother of H.L.B., JR., and

H.L.B., Minor Children,

Appellant,

v.

DEPARTMENT OF CHILDREN AND 

FAMILIES,

Appellee.

_____________________________

On appeal from the Circuit Court for Escambia County.

Coleman Lee Robinson, Judge.

December 6, 2018

PER CURIAM.

AFFIRMED.

B.L. THOMAS, C.J., and BILBREY and JAY, JJ., concur.

_____________________________

Not final until disposition of any timely and 

authorized motion under Fla. R. App. P. 9.330 or 

9.331.

_____________________________
2

R.H., pro se, Appellant.

Sara J. Rumph, Appellate Counsel, Children’s Legal Services, 

Tallahassee, for Appellee.

Thomasina Moore, Statewide Director of Appeals, and Sara E. 

Goldfarb, Appellate Counsel, Florida Statewide Guardian ad Litem 

Office, Tallahassee, for Guardian ad Litem Program.