alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 86 (Thursday, May 2, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19617]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10873]



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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. ER96-924-000]


Direct Access Management, LP; Notice of Issuance of Order

Arpil 26, 1996.
    On January 25, 1996, as supplemented on February 20, 1996, Direct 
Access Management, LP (Direct Access) submitted for filing a rate 
schedule under which Direct Access will engage in wholesale electric 
power and energy transactions as a marketer. Direct Access also 
requested waiver of various Commission regulations. In particular, 
Direct Access requested that the Commission grant blanket approval 
under 18 CFR Part 34 of all future issuances of securities and 
assumptions of liability by Direct Access.
    On April 25, 1996, the Commission issued a letter order that 
granted requests for blanket approval under Part 34, subject to the 
following:
    Within thirty days of the date of the order, any person desiring to 
be heard or to protest the blanket approval of issuances of securities 
or assumptions of liability by Direct Access should file a motion to 
intervene or protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 
First Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with Rules 
211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.211 and 385.214).
    Absent a request for hearing within this period, Direct Access is 
authorized to issue securities and assume obligations or liabilities as 
a guarantor, indorser, surety, or otherwise in respect of any security 
of another person; provided that such issuance or assumption is for 
some lawful object within the corporate purposes of the applicant, and 
compatible with the public interest, and is reasonably necessary or 
appropriate for such purposes.
    The Commission reserves the right to require a further showing that 
neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected by 
continued approval of Direct Access' issuances of securities or 
assumptions of liability.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing motions to 
intervene or protests, as set forth above, is May 28, 1996.

    Copies of the full text of the order are available from the 
Commission's Public Reference Branch, 888 First Street, N.E. 
Washington, D.C. 20426.
Linwood A. Watson, Jr.,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-10873 Filed 5-1-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
Exhibit 10.28

October 20, 2010

LOGO

David Cathcart

Chief Financial Officer

TRX, Inc.

2970 Clairmont Road

Suite 300

Atlanta, GA 30329

Re: Amendment 5 to Second
Letter of Amendment

Dear David:

The purpose of this letter is to amend the Second Letter of Amendment dated December 23, 2009 as amended on June 7, 2010, July 30,
2010, and August 30, 2010, and September 30, 2010. Effective October 20, 2010, Expedia and TRX now agree to amend the Second Letter of Amendment as follows:

Section 3 is hereby deleted and replaced with the following:

3)
Renewal of Pricing and Exclusivity for 2011. The pricing and exclusivity terms set forth in Section 1 and Section 2 of this Second Letter of Amendment will automatically be extended for calendar year 2011 unless either Party gives
the other Party written notice of non-renewal of such terms on or before October 31, 2010. If such notice is given, Section 1 and Section 2 will cease to apply, effective December 31, 2010, and the pricing terms under the
Agreement (and associated SOWs) that were in place prior to this Second Letter of Amendment will apply in calendar year 2011.

Please
acknowledge your agreement to the foregoing by signing in the space provided below and returning a signed copy to me as soon as possible. If you do not agree with any of the foregoing, please contact me as soon as possible so that we can determine
how best to proceed.



Yours truly,Expedia, Inc./s/ Kerri LandeisKerri LandeisVice President, GSO




|                         |  | 
|------------------------ |  | 
|Acknowledged and Agreed:
|                        
|TRX, Inc.               

|    |  |                      
|--- |  | ---------------------
|    | 
|By: |  | /s/ David D. Cathcart

|       |  |                        
|------ |  | -----------------------
|Title: |  | Chief Financial Officer

|             |  |                
|------------ |  | ---------------
|Date Signed: |  | 20 October 2010
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-2018-0025-6365

Danieli Corporation: 

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
**UN PUBLISHED** 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

**No. 09**  **- 7265** 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA , Plaintiff

- Appellee ,
v. MOHAMED HASSAN SOLIMAN , Defendant

- Appellant
.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the East ern District of Virginia , at Norfolk
. Rebecca Beach Smith , District Judge. ( 2:06

- cr - 00169

- RBS

- FBS

- 1; 2:08

- cv - 00278

- RBS )

Submitted : May 13, 2010 Decided: August 24, 2010

Before NIEMEYER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN , Circuit Judges.

Dismissed by un publish ed per curiam opinion
.
Mohamed Hassan Soliman, Appellant Pro Se . Robert John Krask, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.2 PER CURIAM: Mohamed Hassan Solima n seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. A. § 2255 ( West Supp. 2009 ) motion. The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1) (200 6 ). A certifi cate of appealability will not issue absent “a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2) (200 6 ). When the district court denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard by demonstrating that reas onable jurists would find that the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims is debatable or wrong. Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000); see Miller

- El v. Cockrell , 537 U.S. 322, 336

- 38 (2003). When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural ruling is debatable, and that the motion states a debatable claim of the denial of a constitutional right. Slack , 529 U.S. at 484

- 85. We have independently reviewed the record and conclude that Soliman has not made the requisite showing. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability , deny leave to proceed in forma pauperis, and dismiss the appeal. In addition, we deny Solima n’s motion for app oint ment of couns el
. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal3 contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

DISMISSED
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  BioForce  Nanosciences
Holdings,  Inc.  (the  "Company") on Form 10-QSB/A for the period --- ended June
30,  2006,  as filed with the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission  on the date
hereof (the "Report"),  I, Eric Henderson,  Principal  Accounting Officer of the
Company,  certify,  pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Sec.
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.


/S/   ERIC HENDERSON
-------------------------------
Eric Henderson
Principal Accounting Officer
November 17, 2006



     A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906, or
     other document  authenticating,  acknowledging,  or otherwise  adopting the
     signature that appears in typed form within the electronic  version of this
     written  statement has been provided to the Company and will be retained by
     the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its
     staff upon  request.  The foregoing  certifications  are  accompanying  the
     Company's   Form   10-QSB/A   solely   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) and is not being filed as part
     of the Form 10-QSB/A or as a separate disclosure document.
EXHIBIT 13.2

                          CERTIFICATION OF ARTHUR LANG
     PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906
                        OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002







<PAGE>


                                  EXHIBIT 13.2

    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  Amendment No. 1 to the Annual Report on Form 20-F/A for the
year ended December 31, 2006 of IMA Exploration Inc. (the  "Company"),  as filed
with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof the "Report"), I,
Arthur Lang,  Chief  Financial  Officer and  Director 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 results of
                  operations of the Company.

A signed original of this written statement has been provided to the Company and
will be  retained  by the  Company  and  furnished  to the SEC or its staff upon
request.


/s/ ARTHUR LANG
-------------------------------------
Arthur Lang
Chief Financial Officer and Director
19052 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 84 / Tuesday, April 30, 1996 / Notices

[FR Doc. 96–10603 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3510–12–M

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR

SEVERELY DISABLED

Proposed Additions to the

Procurement List; Correction

In the document appearing on page

15225, FR Doc. 96–8506, in the issue of

April 5, 1996, in the first column, the

following NSN shown as 7520–01–424–

4862 should read 7520–01–424–4861. In

the same document, appearing in the

same column, the NSN shown as 8135–

00–689–9466 should read 8135–00–

618–1783.

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–10641 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

Additions to the Procurement List;

Correction

In the document appearing on page

17281, FR Doc. 96–9732, in the issue of

April 19, 1996, in the first column, the

following item should be deleted from

the document—Gloves, Patient

Examining (6515–01–364–8553).

Beverly L. Milkman,

Executive Director.

[FR Doc. 96–10642 Filed 4–29–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

Proposed Collection; Comment

Request

AGENCY: Office of the Under Secretary of

Defense (Personnel and Readiness).

ACTION: Notice.

In compliance with Section

3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, the Office of the

Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel

and Readiness) announces the following

proposed reinstatement of a public

information collection and seeks public

comment on the provisions thereof.

Comments are invited on: (a) whether

the proposed collection of information

is necessary for the proper performance

of the functions of the agency, including

whether the information shall have

practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of burden of the

proposed information collection; (c)

ways to enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and (d) ways to minimize the

burden of the information collection on

respondents, including through the use
#### Daniel GODFREY, Appellant, v. UNION ELECTRIC COMPANY, Respondent.

No. 64091.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Four.

March 8, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied April 7, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied May 26, 1994.

*505George J. Miller, Fenton, for appellant.

James J. Virtel, St. Louis, for respondent.

CARL R. GAERTNER, Judge.

Plaintiff Daniel Godfrey appeals from the grant of summary judgment entered in favor of the defendant, Union Electric Company.

The material facts are not in dispute. On January 11, 1988, Godfrey was a passenger in a motor vehicle driven by Daniel Devine. Christopher Perry was also a passenger in the vehicle. Devine was intoxicated, but he operated his vehicle in a normal manner until he approached the intersection of Laclede Station Road and Rock Hill Road. At that time, Devine began to rapidly accelerate. He lost control of the vehicle, left the roadway and struck a utility pole owned by Union Electric. The utility pole was located approximately five feet from the white line delineating the travelled portion of Rock Hill Road and approximately three feet from the pavement. Devine died as a result of the accident, and Godfrey and Perry were severely injured.

Godfrey brought an action against Union Electric for negligently maintaining the utility pole too close to the travelled portion of Rock Hill Road. Union Electric sought a summary judgment which the trial court granted. Godfrey appeals.

The trial court granted summary judgment because Godfrey would be unable to prove that Union Electric owed any duty to protect him from this type of injury. The issue presented here is identical to the one we decided in *Noe v. Pipe Works, Inc.,*874 S.W.2d 502 (Mo.App.1994), handed down this same day.

In *Noe*we held that this issue was controlled by the Missouri Supreme Court’s decision in *Clinkenbeard v. City of St. Joseph,*321 Mo. 71, 10 S.W.2d 54 (1928). *Noe,*874 S.W.2d at 504. *Clinkenbeard*holds that there is no duty owed to the operator of a motor vehicle who leaves the improved or normally travelled portion of a roadway and strikes an object maintained wholly outside of that roadway. *Noe*at 504. This also applies to a passenger in a such a vehicle.

In the present case, the undisputed facts show that the utility pole was outside of the paved portion of the road. Godfrey was injured only because the vehicle in which he was a passenger left the travelled portion of the road. As a matter of law, Godfrey cannot establish that Union Electric owed him any duty of protection from the type of injury he suffered. Therefore, summary judgment is appropriate.

Godfrey argues that there are several reasons why the principles in *Clinkenbeard*should no longer apply. We are constitutionally bound to follow the last controlling decision of the Supreme Court of Missouri. Mo. Const, art. V, Sec. 2 (1945); *Noe*at 504. For these reasons the trial court’s grant of summary judgment is affirmed.

GRIMM, P.J., and AHRENS, J., concur.
|   | 1. | I      am the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chief Financial Officer of      Royal Energy Resources, Inc. |
|--------|----|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 2. | Attached      to this certification is Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended August 31,      2009, a periodic report (the “periodic report”) filed by the issuer with      the Securities Exchange Commission pursuant to Section 13(a) or 15(d) of      the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”), which      contains financial statements. |
|--------|----|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | 3. | I      hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to      Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002,  that |
|--------|----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      periodic report containing the financial statements fully complies with      the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Exchange Act,      and |
|--------|--------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | · | The      information in the periodic report fairly presents, in all material      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer      for the periods presented. |
|--------|--------|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| December      14, 2009 | /s/ Jacob Roth              |
|------------------------|-----------------------------|
|                   | Jacob      Roth             |
|                   | President,      CEO and CFO |

----
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 09-1203

JAMES E. SLATE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General,

Defendant – Appellee.

No. 09-1204

JAMES E. SLATE,

Plaintiff – Appellant,

v.

JOHN E. POTTER, Postmaster General; JEFFREY F. PEROTTA, Labor Relations Manager; ROY L. MONTAGUE, Postmaster,

Defendants – Appellees.

Appeals from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. James A. Beaty, Jr., Chief District Judge. (1:04-cv-00782-JAB; 1:05-cv-00221-JAB-PTS)

Submitted: January 29, 2010 Decided: February 16, 2010

Before WILKINSON, MICHAEL, and DAVIS, Circuit Judges.Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James E. Slate, Appellant Pro Se. David Clifford Belt, UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE, Washington D.C.; Lynne P. Klauer, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina; Shari A. Rose, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C. for Appellees.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

23 PER CURIAM:

James E. Slate appeals the district court’s order

granting the Defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Slate’s

civil actions. We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated

by the district court. See Slate v. Potter , Nos. 1:04-cv-00782-

JAB; 1:05-cv-00221-JAB-PTS (M.D.N.C. Sept. 30, 2009). We

dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the

court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
| |  | PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit
      63, rue de Villiers 
      92208 Neuilly-sur-Seine Cedex 
      Téléphone 01 56 57 58 59 
      Fax 01 56 57 58 60
| |  | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT AUDITORS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in AXA's Registration Statements on Form S-8 (Nos. 333-128450, 333-118107, 333-118105, 333-118103, 333-109227, 333-104438, 333-99083, 333-91900, 333-75600, 333-70516, 333-12088, 333-9212, 333-08910 and 333-12944), and on Form F-3 (Nos. 333-12872 and 333-12956) of our report dated June 26, 2006 relating to the consolidated financial statements and financial statement schedule, which appears on page F-1 of AXAs Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2005.

PricewaterhouseCoopers Audit



|/s/ Yves Nicolas |  | /s/ Michael P. Nelligan
|---------------- |  | -----------------------
|Yves Nicolas     |  | Michael P. Nelligan    



Paris, France