alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 85 (Wednesday, May 1, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 19305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10832]



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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public Health Service


National Toxicology Program; Availability of Technical Report on 
Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of t-Butyl Alcohol

    The HHS' National Toxicology Program announces the availability of 
the NTP Technical Report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies 
of t-butyl alcohol. t-Butyl alcohol is widely used in the manufacture 
of perfumes and a variety of cosmetics.
    Toxicology and carcinogenicity studies were conducted by 
administration of t-butyl alcohol, in drinking water to groups of 60 
F344/N rats of each sex at doses of 0, 1.25, 2.5, or 5 mg/mL for males 
and 0, 2.5, 5, or 10 mg/mL for females. Groups of 60 
B<INF>6C<INF>3F<INF>1 mice of each sex received t-butyl alcohol in 
drinking water at does of 0, 5, 10, or 20 mg/mL.
    Under the conditions of these 2-year drinking water studies, there 
was some evidence of carcinogenic activity \1\ of t-butyl alcohol in 
male F344/N rats based on increased incidences of renal tubule adenoma 
or carcinoma (combined). There was no evidence of carcinogenic activity 
of t-butyl alcohol in female F344/N rats receiving 2.5, 5 or 10 mg/mL. 
There was equivocal evidence of carcinogenic activity in male 
B<INF>6C<INF>3F<INF>1 mice based on marginally increased incidences of 
follicular cell adenoma or carcinoma (combined) of the thyroid gland. 
There was some evidence of carcinogenic activity of t-butyl alcohol in 
female B<INF>6C<INF>3F<INF>1 mice based on increased incidences of 
follicular cell adenoma of the thyroid gland.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The NTP uses five categories of evidence of carcinogenic 
activity observed in each animal study: two categories for positive 
results (``clear evidence'' and ``some evidence''), one category for 
uncertain findings (``equivocal evidence''), one category for no 
observable effect (``no evidence'') and one category for studies 
that cannot be evaluated because of major flaws (``inadequate 
study'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Questions or comments about the Technical Report should be directed 
to Central Data Management at P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle Park, 
NC 27709 or telephone (919) 541-3419.
    Copies of Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of t-Butyl Alcohol 
(CAS No. 75-65-0) (TR-436) are available without charge from Central 
Data Management, NIEHS, MD E1-02, P.O. Box 12233, Research Triangle 
Park, NC 27709; telephone (919) 541-3419.

    Dated: April 27, 1996.

Kenneth Olden,

Director, National Toxicology Program.

[FR Doc. 96-10832 Filed 4-30-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4140-01-M
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Environmental Protection Agency

          - [ER-FRL-9056-9]

*Responsible Agency:* Office of Federal Activities, General Information 202-564-5632 or *https://www.epa.gov/​nepa.*

Weekly receipt of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS)

Filed May 28, 2021 10 a.m. EST Through June 7, 2021 10 a.m. EST

Pursuant to 40 CFR 1506.9.

## Notice

Section 309(a) of the Clean Air Act requires that EPA make public its comments on EISs issued by other Federal agencies. EPA's comment letters on EISs are available at: *https://cdxnodengn.epa.gov/​cdx-enepa-public/​action/​eis/​search.*

*EIS No. 20210066, Draft, FRA, NY,* Western Rail Yard Infrastructure Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/26/2021, Contact: Andrea E. Poole 202-493-0624.

*EIS No. 20210067, Final, FRA, NJ,* Hudson Tunnel Project—Combined Final Environmental Impact Statement/Record of Decision and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation, Contact: Amishi Castelli 617-431-0416. Under 23 U.S.C. 139(n)(2), FRA is issuing a single document that consists of a final environmental impact statement and record of decision. Therefore, the review period does not apply.

*EIS No. 20210068, Draft, BLM, CA,* Whitewater River Groundwater Replenishment Facility Right of Way Project, Comment Period Ends: 07/26/2021, Contact: Brandon G. Anderson 951-697-5215.

*EIS No. 20210069, Draft, USCG, ND,* BNSF Railway Bridge 196.6 Project across the Missouri River, Morton and Burleigh Counties, Between Bismarck and Mandan, North Dakota, Comment Period Ends: 07/26/2021, Contact: Rob McCaskey 314-269-2381.

*EIS No. 20210070, Final, USACE, CA,* Lower Cache Creek, Yolo County, Woodland and Vicinity, CA, Flood Risk Management Feasibility Study, Review Period Ends: 07/12/2021, Contact: Keleigh Duey 916-557-5131.

*EIS No. 20210071, Draft, USACE, LA,* St. Tammany Parish, Louisiana Feasibility Study, Comment Period Ends: 07/26/2021, Contact: Everard Baker 504-862-1014.

Dated: June 7, 2021.

Candi Schaedle,

Acting Director, NEPA Compliance Division, Office of Federal Activities.

[FR Doc. 2021-12293 Filed 6-10-21; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
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 CenterPoint Energy Transition Bond Company II, LLC (the “Company”) on Form
10-Q for the quarter ended September 30, 2008 (the “Report”), as filed with the
Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof, I, Marc Kilbride,
certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906
of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, to the best of my knowledge,
that:





1.           The
Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/
      Marc KilbrideMarc
      KilbrideVice
      President and Treasurer(Principal
      Financial Officer)November
      12, 2008
#### Donnie WISHOM, Movant/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent/Respondent.

No. 64378.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

June 7, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Aug. 11, 1994.

*632Deborah B. Wafer, Sp. Asst. Public Defender, St. Louis, for appellant.

Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Joanne E. Beal, Asst. Atty. Gen., Jefferson City, for respondent.

Before CRANDALL, P.J., and REINHARD and CRIST, JJ.

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Movant appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion seeking credit for jail time served. We affirm. The findings and conclusions of the motion court are not clearly erroneous; an extended opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order affirming the judgment pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
----

| (1)   | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; 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/ Richard A. Kielty                                  |   |   |   |   |
| Richard A. KieltyPresident and Chief Executive Officer |   |   |   |   |
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-2018-0025-6883

Sears Holdings Management 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
----

**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, John Boschert, Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial  Officer of Balsam Ventures, Inc. (the “Company”), hereby certify pursuant  to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley  Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge: 

|   | (i)    | the Form 10-KSB/A amendment to the Annual Report        on Form 10-KSB of the Company, for the fiscal year ended December 31,        2003, and to which this certification is attached as Exhibit 32.2 (the        “Report”) fully complies with the requirements of Section        13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and |
|--------|--------|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   |
|   | (ii)   | the information contained in the Report fairly presents,        in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations        of the Company.                                                                                                                                                                                                     |

|   | By:    | */s/ John Boschert*                              |
|--------|--------|--------------------------------------------------|
|   |   |                                             |
|   | Name:  | John Boschert                                    |
|   |   |                                             |
|   | Title: | Secretary, Treasurer and Chief Financial Officer |
|   |   |                                             |
|   | Date:  | April 16, 2004                                   |

*A signed original of this written statement required by  Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 has been provided to the Registrant  and will be retained by the Registrant and furnished to the Securities and Exchange  Commission or its staff upon request.*

*This certification accompanies the Form 10-KSB/A to which  it relates, is not deemed filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission  and is not to be incorporated by reference into any filing of the Registrant  under the Securities Act of 1933 or the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (whether  made before or after the date of the Form 10-KSB/A), irrespective of any general  incorporation language contained in such filing.*

----
## In the

Court of Appeals

Second Appellate District of Texas

at Fort Worth

No. 02

- 23

- 00379

- CV

M ADHU L ODGING P ARTNERS

, LP

, Appellant

V

.

A M G UARD I NSURANCE C OMPANY

, Appellee §

§

§

§ On Appeal from the 43rd District

Co urt

of Parker County ( CV19

- 1436 )

May 30, 2024

Memorandum Opinion by Chief Justice

Sudderth

JUDGMENT

This court has considered the record on appeal in this case and holds that there

was no error in the trial court’s judgment. It is ordered that the j udgment of the trial

court is affirmed.

It is further ordered that Madhu Lodging Partners , L P shall pay all costs of this

appeal, for which let execution issue.

SECOND DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS

By /s/ Bonnie Sudderth

Chief Justice Bonnie Suddert h
#### Nancy BARNES, Appellant/Employee, v. JEWISH HOSPITAL, Respondent/Employer.

No. 67610.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division One.

July 11, 1995.

Brian J. Dean, St. Louis, for appellant.

Timothy M. Tierney, Evans & Dixon, St. Louis, for respondent.

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

*ORDER*

PER CURIAM.

Appellant, Nancy Barnes, appeals from the Final Award of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying compensation for her carpal tunnel surgery. We affirm.

We have reviewed the briefs of the parties and the legal file and find the Commission’s award is supported by competent and substantial evidence, and no error of law appears. As we further find an extended opin*367ion would serve no jurisprudential purpose, we affirm the Commission’s finding pursuant to Rule 84.16(b). A memorandum, solely for the use of the parties here involved, has been provided explaining the reasons for the decision.
**Exhibit 31.1**

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 20**02

I, Kim Boyce certify that:

1. I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-KSB of the small business issuer;

2. Based on my knowledge, this  Report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by this  Report;

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included in this  Report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this  Report;

4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the small business issuer and have:

a) designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designed, to ensure that material information relating to the small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this  Report is being prepared;

b) evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

c) disclosed in this Report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter (the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’s auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions);

a) all significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the small business issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.
#### Reginald Shaun RICHARDSON aka Reginald Shown Richardson, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, State.

No. 2-91-198-CR.

Court of Appeals of Texas, Fort Worth.

Feb. 10, 1993.

Richard Alley, Leon Haley, Jr. (Lead counsel on appeal only), Fort Worth, for appellant.

Tim Curry, Dist. Atty., and Susan Ayres, William Koos, Sylvia Mandel, Assts., Fort Worth, for appellee.

Before FARRIS and DAY, JJ., and ASHWORTH, J. (Retired), Sitting by Assignment.

OPINION

DAY, Justice.

Appellant seeks to appeal from an adjudication of guilt under the provisions of TEX. CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 42.12, § 3d(a).1 We affirm.

Appellant pled guilty to the offense of possession of a prohibited weapon. The trial court deferred the proceedings without entering an adjudication of guilt and placed appellant on probation for two years. The trial court subsequently found that appellant had violated the conditions of probation by committing a new offense (illegal investment), proceeded to adjudi*434cate guilt, and assessed appellant’s punishment at fifteen years confinement.

In three points of error, appellant complains that (1) he has been deprived of due process since *the*appellate record does not contain a record made at the time of his plea of guilty; (2) article 42.12 is unconstitutional since it specifically bars an appeal from the trial court’s determination to adjudicate guilt; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion in proceeding to an adjudication of guilt.

TEX.R.APP.P. 50(d) places the burden on the appellant to see that a sufficient record is presented on appeal to show error. The record fails to demonstrate that appellant ever requested that the proceedings be recorded. Further, appellant fails to offer any excuse whatsoever for his failure to present a record on appeal. Because appellant has not sustained his burden in requesting a statement of facts, he has shown no violation of due process. *Epps v. State,*809 S.W.2d 770, 772 (Tex.App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 1991, pet. ref’d). We overrule appellant’s first point of error.

In his final points of error, appellant complains of the unconstitutionality of article 42.12 since it bars an appeal from a trial court’s determination to adjudicate. Appellant’s contentions are without merit. There is no federal or state constitutional right to appeal criminal convictions. While a defendant may appeal an order deferring adjudication, a defendant may not appeal a determination to proceed with an adjudication of guilt. *Olowosuko v. State,*826 S.W.2d 940, 942 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). Furthermore, neither the federal nor state constitution guarantees a right to appellate review of criminal convictions. *Phynes v. State,*828 S.W.2d 1, 2 (Tex.Crim.App.1992).

Appellant’s final two points of error are dismissed and the judgment of the trial court is affirmed.

1

. Act of June 11, 1985, 69th Leg., R.S., Ch. 427, § 1, 1985 Tex.Gen.Laws 1532, 1533, *amended by*Act of June 15, 1989, 71st Leg., R.S., Ch. 785, § 4.17, 1989 Tex.Gen.Laws 3498, 3500 (current version at TEX.CODE CRIM.PROC.ANN. art. 42.12, § 5(a) (Vernon Supp.1993)).
#### Kirby BRELSFORD, Appellant, v. Lawrence BRELSFORD, Respondent.

No. WD 49752.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

April 4, 1995.

Alan J. Fleming, Kansas City, for appel-' lant.

Matthew W. Rau, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and ULRICH and SMART, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM:

Kirby Brelsford appeals a decision in a negligence action granting summary judgment to Lawrence Brelsford based on Missouri’s Recreational Use Statute, § 537.346 *et seq.,*RSMo 1986.

Judgment affirmed. Rule 84.16(b).
* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.

R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 00-60365

Summary Calendar

 

GARY MOAWAD,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

FRED CHILDS; AARON JAGER;

CARMEN GETTIS CASTILLA;

MACKEY HOPKINS; HUBERT FOSTER;

JIMMY FULCE; ROBERT HUGHES;

MARVEN BROSS; EUGENE MAILEY,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Northern District of Mississippi

USDC No. 4:90-CV-172-S-B

- - - - - - - - - -

April 9, 2001

Before EMILIO M. GARZA, STEWART and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Gary Moawad, Mississippi prisoner #31272, appeals from the

district court’s denial of his “Motion to Enforce and/or Modify

Injunctive Relief Entered in an Agreed Order.” Moawad argues

that the parole board failed to view the comments of the elected

officials with appropriate care and caution in violation of the

agreed order. 
No. 00-60365

-2-

The movant in a civil contempt proceeding bears the burden

of establishing by clear and convincing evidence that: (1) a

court order was in effect; (2) the order required certain conduct

by the respondent; and (3) the respondent failed to comply with

the court’s order. Martin v. Trinity Indus., Inc., 959 F.2d 45,

47 (5th Cir. 1992). In the contempt context, “clear and

convincing evidence” is that “weight of proof which produces in

the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to

truth of the allegations sought to be established, evidence so

clear, direct, weighty and convincing as to enable fact finder to

come to a clear conviction, without hesitancy, of the truth of

the precise facts of the case.” Travelhost, Inc. v. Blandford,

68 F.3d 958, 961 (5th Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and citations

omitted). This court reviews a district court’s ruling on a

motion for contempt for an abuse of discretion and its underlying

factual findings for clear error. Id.

We have reviewed the record and conclude that the district

court did not abuse its discretion in denying relief. 

Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.