alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
#### Bernard Brown, Appellant, v Miriam Brown, Respondent.

In an action for a divorce and ancillary relief, in which the parties were divorced by judgment entered March 16, 1977, the plaintiff husband appeals from an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County (Corrado, J.), dated May 15, 1989, which denied his motion for a protective order and directed him to appear for his deposition and to produce financial records and other documents.

Ordered that the order is modified, by deleting the provision thereof which denied that branch of the plaintiffs motion which was for a protective order vacating the defendant wife’s *430notice with regard to his tax returns from 1983 to 1988, and substituting therefor a provision granting that branch of the motion; as so modified, the order is affirmed, without costs or disbursements. The deposition shall be conducted at a time and place to be set forth in a written notice of at least 10 days to be given by the respondent to the appellant, or at such time and place as the parties may agree.

We agree with the husband’s contention that his financial status has no relevance to the issue of whether the wife has been living with another man and has thus forfeited her right to support. Accordingly, the protective order sought is granted for tax returns which the wife sought in her discovery notice *(see, Cross v Cross,*112 AD2d 62). However, the Supreme Court properly denied the husband’s motion in regard to the various documents allegedly compiled by a private investigator whom the husband employed to investigate the wife. The burden of establishing exemption from disclosure rests on the party resisting discovery and the mere assertion that the items constitute an attorney’s work product or materials prepared for litigation will not suffice *(see, Zimmerman v Nassau Hosp.,*76 AD2d 921; *Koump v Smith,*25 NY2d 287). The record indicates that the husband has made no showing at all that the documents resulting from the investigation of the wife were either the work product of his attorney or materials prepared for litigation. Bracken, J. P., Eiber, Sullivan and Rosenblatt, JJ., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 17 (Thursday, January 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 2247-2248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-1068]



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


DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Privatization of Isotope Activities; Comment Request

AGENCY: Department of Energy (DOE).

ACTION: Notice of rescheduling of public meeting.

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

SUMMARY: DOE published a Notice in the December 5, 1995 Commerce 
Business Daily and December 11, 1995 Federal Register seeking 
Expressions of Interest concerning the possible privatization of DOE 
isotope activities. The Notice was to remain effective until February 
23, 1996, responses were due by February 23, 1996, and an information 
meeting was to be held at the DOE facility auditorium in Germantown, 
Maryland, on January 10, 1996. Due to severe weather, the information 
meeting was not held. This Notice announces a change in public meeting 
dates.

DATES: The Notice seeking Expressions of Interest concerning the 
possible privatization of DOE isotope activities will now remain 
effective until March 29, 1996. Responses may be submitted 

[[Page 2248]]
at any time prior to March 29, 1996. An information meeting addressing 
this notice will be held at the DOE facility auditorium in Germantown, 
Maryland, from 9:00 a.m. until noon on February 13, 1996. Information 
packages distributed during the February 13, 1996, meeting will be made 
available to interested parties after February 14, 1996. Submit 
requests to the programmatic information contact listed below.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: All information, other than the dates, 
presented in the December 1995 Notice remains the same. Requests for 
information should be directed to: Mr. Owen W. Lowe, U.S. Department of 
Energy, Isotope Production and Distribution, NE-70 (GTN), 19901 
Germantown Road, Germantown, MD 20874, (301) 903-5161.

    Issued in Washington, D.C., on January 18, 1996.
Owen W. Lowe,
Associate Director for Isotope Production and Distribution, Office of 
Nuclear Energy, Science and Technology.
[FR Doc. 96-1068 Filed 1-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 106 (Friday, June 4, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 29998]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-11746]


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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

Foreign-Trade Zones Board

[B-05-2021]


Foreign-Trade Zone (FTZ) 265--Conroe, Texas; Authorization of 
Production Activity; Bauer Manufacturing LLC, d/b/a NEORig (Water Well 
Drilling Rigs), Conroe, Texas

    On February 1, 2021, the City of Conroe, grantee of FTZ 265, 
submitted a notification of proposed production activity to the FTZ 
Board on behalf of Bauer Manufacturing LLC, d/b/a NEORig, within FTZ 
265, in Conroe, Texas.
    The notification was processed in accordance with the regulations 
of the FTZ Board (15 CFR part 400), including notice in the Federal 
Register inviting public comment (86 FR 8583, February 8, 2021). On 
June 1, 2021, the applicant was notified of the FTZ Board's decision 
that no further review of the activity is warranted at this time. The 
production activity described in the notification was authorized, 
subject to the FTZ Act and the FTZ Board's regulations, including 
Section 400.14.

    Dated: June 1, 2021.
Andrew McGilvray,
Executive Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-11746 Filed 6-3-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P
Second Amendment to Management Services Agreement dated November 1, 2006



 Exhibit 10.3 
 SECOND ADDENDUM TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 This Second Addendum (the
“Addendum”) is entered into as of November 1, 2006, by and between CALIFORNIA RADIATION THERAPY MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., a California corporation (“Manager”) and 21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA A MEDICAL CORPORATION, a California medical corporation (“Medical Group”). This Addendum amends Sections 1.(a) of the
Management Services Agreement dated May 1, 2006, as set forth below. 
 From and after the date here of, 
 (i) Section 1.(a) shall be amended to read as follows: 
 “(a) Management. The Manager will be responsible for general management and administration operations of the Office locations, excluding the provision of medical services, set forth on Exhibit B hereto.
The Manager shall not engage in the practice of medicine.” 
  

					
	 Accepted:
	 	 CALIFORNIA RADIATION THERAPY

		 	 MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

			
		 	By:	 	/s/ David M. Koeninger
		 		 	 David M. Koeninger

		 		 	 Chief Financial Officer

		
	 Accepted:
	 	
		 	21ST CENTURY ONCOLOGY OF CALIFORNIA, A MEDICAL
CORPORATION
			
		 	By:	 	/s/ Daniel E. Dosoretz
		 		 	Daniel E. Dosoretz, M.D.
		 		 	 Vice President










 EXHIBIT B 
 ADDENDUM TO MANAGEMENT SERVICES AGREEMENT 
 Office Locations and Manager Compensation

  

				
	 Office Location
	  	 Manager
Compensation
 as a % of Net
 Collected Dollars
	 
	 Palm Desert
 77840 Flora Road
 Palm Desert, CA 92211
	  	77	%
	 Santa Monica
 2428 Santa Monica Boulevard
 Suite 103
 Santa Monica, CA 90404
	  	77	%
	 Beverly Hills Radiation Oncology
 150 N. Robertson
Blvd.
 Suite 160
 Beverly Hills, CA 90221
	  	77	%
**EXHIBIT 31.1**

CERTIFICATIONS

I,F. William Capp, certify that:

1.             I have reviewed this annual reporton Form 10-K/A of Beacon Power Corporation;

2.                                       Based on myknowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material factor omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, inlight of the circumstances under which such statements were made, notmisleading with respect to the period covered by this report;

3.                                       Based on myknowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information includedin this report, fairly present in all material respects the financialcondition, results of operations and cash flows of the registrant as of, andfor, the periods presented in this report;

4.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishingand maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange ActRules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:

(a)  Designed such disclosure controls andprocedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to theregistrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us byothers within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

(b)  Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’sdisclosure controls and procedures and presented in this report our conclusionsabout the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the endof the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and

(c)  Disclosed in this report any change in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during theregistrant’s most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or isreasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting; and

5.                                       Theregistrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors:

(a)  All significant deficiencies and materialweaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’sability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b)  Any fraud, whether or not material, thatinvolves management or other employees who have a significant role in theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

May 2, 2007
| /s/ F. William Capp      |   |
|--------------------------|--------|
| F. William Capp          |
| Chief Executive  Officer |

 

----
1 The opinion said, “However, wedo not agree that this pretrial judge should necessarily be located in Harris County, a county in which none of these cases are pending.” None of the cases that we transferred are pending in Bexar County. 

### N OS 

### . 08-0142, 08-0208 & 08-0427
I N RE 

### D ELTA 

### L LOYDS 

### I NSURANCE 

### C OMPANY OF 

### H OUSTON 

### , T EXAS 

### I N RE 

### H URRICANE 

### R ITA 

### H OMEOWNERS 

### ’ C LAIMS 

### I N RE 

### S OUTHEAST 

### S URPLUS 

### U NDERWRITERS 

### G ENERAL 

### A GENCY 

### , INC


### . O N 

### REVIEW 

### B Y THE 

### M ULTIDISTRICT 

### L ITIGATION 

### P ANEL



### P ER 

### C URIAM The Respondents’ motion to vacate order of appointment of pretrial judge is granted in part and denied in part. First, the motion correctly points out that the list of cases attached to our order appears to include cases that we did not intend to transfer. To the extent the motion seeks correction of this error, it is granted. A corrected list of the cases transferred is attached to this order. Second, the motion argues that the assignment of Judge John J. Specia, Jr., a retired judge from Bexar County who is eligible to sit by assignment, is inconsistent with a statement in the panel’s opinion 1 and also that it would not serve the interests of convenience and efficiency to hold hearings in Bexar County, which has no connection to these cases from southeast Texas. These contentions rest on the mistaken assumption that a retired judge will necessarily hold hearings in the county where he lives. To clear up any confusion on this matter, we make the following orders. It is hereby ORDERED that: (1) The cases on the attached list are tran sferred to whichever District Court in Jefferson County Judge Specia determines in his discretion can best serve as the transferee court under Rule 13.2 (e). Judge Sp ecia is assigned to that court to serve as pretrial judge in these cases under Rule 13.6 (a).2 (2) Hearings shall be held in such court or in any other district court in a county where any of the cases are pending. In a ddition, Judge Specia may, in his discretion, conduct hearings by telephone or other conf erencing methods. He may hold hearings in other counties only if he and all parties agree in advance on another location. (3) Judge Specia will exercise his discre tion in deciding under Rule 13.5 (c) who and where his pretrial court clerk will be, wh ere files should be located, and whether there should be electronic or paper filing or both.
A LL CONCUR
. OPINION DELIVERED: October 8, 2008
#### STATE of Missouri, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Anita Woodward SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. Anita Woodward SMITH, Movant-Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Respondent.

Nos. 18700, 19396.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Southern District, Division Two.

Sept. 6, 1994.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied Sept. 27, 1994.

Application to Transfer Denied Oct. 25, 1994.

Rosalynn Koch, Office of the State Public Defender, Columbia, for appellant.

*359Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., Breck K. Burgess, Asst. Atty. Gen., for respondent.

PREWITT, Judge.

Following jury trial appellant was convicted of selling a controlled substance, marijuana. On appeal she contends the trial court erred in allowing an undercover detective to testify that approximately one and one-half to two weeks after the event charged he also purchased marijuana from appellant.

Appellant asserts that this testimony was inadmissible evidence of other crimes, relying on such cases as *State v. Carter,*475 S.W.2d 85 (Mo.1972); *State v. Reed,*447 S.W.2d 533 (Mo.1969); and *State v. Burr,*542 S.W.2d 527, 530 (Mo.App.1976).

Respondent state contends that the evidence was admissible “in that it tended to prove appellant’s motive, intent and knowledge that the substance she was charged with selling the detective was marijuana and it tended to establish the identity of appellant with the crime charged.” The state does not discuss and makes no attempt to distinguish the cases relied upon by appellant.

Neither side cites the more recent cases of *State v. Collins,*669 S.W.2d 933 (Mo. banc 1984), and *State v. Owen,*753 S.W.2d 114 (Mo.App.1988). The cases herein cited establish that the evidence was improper and calls for a reversal. Appeal No. 19396 from the denial of appellant’s post conviction relief motion is thus moot.

Appeal No. 19396 is dismissed as moot; the judgment of conviction, Appeal No. 18700, is reversed and the cause remanded for a new trial.

GARRISON, P.J., and CROW, J., concur.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 92 (Friday, May 10, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 21478]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11704]



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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
[CA-026-1020-00]


Notice of Resource Advisory Council Meeting

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Susanville Resource Advisory 
Council, Susanville, California.

ACTION: Notice of meeting.

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

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Land Management's Susanville Resource Advisory 
Council will hold a business meeting and field tour on Friday and 
Saturday, May 31 and June 1, 1996. The May 31 meeting begins at 10 a.m. 
at the Likely Fire Hall, Likely, CA. Public comments will be taken at 
10:30 a.m. A tour of the Cedar Creek Watershed Restoration Project will 
follow. The Saturday, June 1 meeting begins at 9 a.m., also at the 
Likely Fire Hall. During the meeting, the Advisory Council will 
continue work on development of standards for healthy rangelands and 
guidelines for livestock grazing.
    Summary minutes of the meeting will be maintained in the BLM's 
Eagle Lake Resource Area Office, 2950 Riverside Drive, Susanville, CA, 
and will be available for public inspection and reproduction within 30 
days following the meeting.
Linda D. Hansen,
Eagle Lake Resource Area Manager.
[FR Doc. 96-11704 Filed 5-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-40-P
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA WESTERN DISTRICT COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, Respondent

v. JOHN KOWAL, Petitioner : : : : : : : : : : : No. 187 WAL 2014 Petition for Allowance of Appeal from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER PER CURIAM AND NOW , this 24th day of September, 2014, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is DENIED
.
<Page>

                                                                    Exhibit 99.3

                    CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER
                         OF FLAG TELECOM GROUP LIMITED

    This certification is provided pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, and accompanies the quarterly report on
Form 10-K (the "Form 10-K") for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of FLAG
Telecom Group Limited (the "Issuer").

    I, Michel Cayouette, the Chief Financial Officer of Issuer certify that:

    (i) the Form 10-K fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or
        Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (15 U.S.C. 78m(a)
        or 78o(d)); and

   (ii) the information contained in the Form 10-K fairly presents, in all
        material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
        the Issuer.

    Dated: July 3, 2003.

                                               /s/ MICHEL CAYOUETTE
                                               -------------------------------
                                               Name: Michel Cayouette
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 90 (Wednesday, May 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20875]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11422]



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

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 F.R. 
13359, March 29, 1978), and Delegation Order No. 85-5 of June 27, 1985 
(50 F.R. 27393, July 2, 1985), I hereby determine that the objects to 
be included in the exhibit, ``Olmec Art of Ancient Mexico'' (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, in Washington, D.C., on 
or about June 30, 1996 through October 20, 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. 20547-0001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Dated: May 2, 1996.
Les Jin,
General Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-11422 Filed 5-7-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8230-01-M
#### Warren MAY, Jr., Appellant, v. Claretta Isom MAY, Respondent.

No. 61706.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Three.

Feb. 9, 1993.

Motion for Rehearing and/or Transfer to Supreme Court Denied March 10, 1993.

*521Richard Keven Zerr, Ronald R. Fralicx, Beck, Tiemeyer & Zerr, St. Charles, for appellant.

Catalina Margarita Alvarez, Alter & Alvarez, Clayton, for respondent.

Before GARY M. GAERTNER, P.J., and SMITH and AHRENS, JJ.

ORDER

PER CURIAM.

Appellant husband appeals from a judgment in a dissolution of marriage ease. We find no error and the judgment is supported by competent and substantial evidence. A written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been furnished with a memorandum supplementing this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
```

[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 82 (Friday, April 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 18637]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-10401]

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

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

Minneapolis Advisory Council Meeting

    The U.S. Small Business Administration, Minneapolis, St. Paul 
District Advisory Council will hold a public meeting on Friday, May 24, 
1996 at 11:30 am at the Decathlon Club, 1700 East 79th Street, 
Bloomington, Minnesota, to discuss matters as may be presented by 
members, staff of the U.S. Small Business Administration, or others 
present.

    For further information, write or call Mr. Edward A. Daum, District 
Director, U.S. Small Business Administration, 610-C Butler Square, 100 
North Sixth Street, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55403, (612) 370-2306.

    Dated: April 22, 1996.
Bill Combs,
Associate Administrator for Office of Communication and Public Liaison.
[FR Doc. 96-10401 Filed 4-25-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8025-01-P
```
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 89 (Tuesday, May 7, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 20524]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-11322]



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

FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
[FEMA-1111-DR]


Arkansas; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration

AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: This notice amends the notice of a major disaster for the 
State of Arkansas, (FEMA-1111-DR), dated April 23, 1996, and related 
determinations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Pauline C. Campbell, Response and 
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, 
DC 20472, (202) 646-3606.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The notice of a major disaster for the State 
of Arkansas, is hereby amended to include the following areas among 
those areas determined to have been adversely affected by the 
catastrophe declared a major disaster by the President in his 
declaration of April 23, 1996:

    The counties of Franklin and Madison for Public Assistance. 
(Already designated for Individual Assistance and Hazard Mitigation 
Assistance.)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.516, Disaster 
Assistance.)

William C. Tidball,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery Directorate.
[FR Doc. 96-11322 Filed 5-6-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P