alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 123 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 32775]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16080]



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

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
[I.D. 060696B]


Marine Mammals; Permit No. 834 (P6O)

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and 
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.

ACTION: Issuance of modification.

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

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that permit no. 834, issued to The 
National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C., 
was amended to include export of specimen materials.

ADDRESSES: The modification and related documents are available for 
review upon written request or by appointment in the following offices:
    Permits Division, Office of Protected Resources, NMFS, 1315 East-
West Highway, Room 13130 Silver Spring, MD 20910 (301/713-2289); and
    Northeast Region, NMFS, One Blackburn Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930-
2298 (508/281-9250).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The subject modification has been issued 
under the authority of the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, as 
amended (16 U.S.C. 1361 et seq.) and the provisions of paragraphs (d) 
and (e) of Sec. 216.33 of the Regulations Governing the Taking and 
Importing of Marine Mammals (50 CFR part 216).

    Dated: June 14, 1996.
Ann D. Terbush,
Chief, Permits and Documentation Division, Office of Protected 
Resources, National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-16080 Filed 6-24-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ORDER ESTABLISHING TRIAL DOCKET FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY AND

 JUNE, 2009, BEFORE THE HONORABLE PATRICK J. DUGGAN*

Listed below are the cases on this Court's trial docket for the months of May and June,

2009. Counsel will be notified when their case reaches No. 5. After such notice, counsel

should be prepared to begin trial any time on 48 hours notice. It is counsel's responsibility

in all cases after they have been so notified to contact my clerk, Marilyn Orem, at 234-

5147, to ascertain the status of the trial docket. Unless otherwise notified, this Court

commences trial at 8:45 a.m. PLEASE BE PROMPT!

1. 08-14035 BEHNKE V. HIDDEN OAKS GROUP, INC.

2. 08-12795 WITMER V. ACUMENT GLOBAL TECHNOLOGIES, ET.AL

3. 08-12481 TOKARCZYK V. A. G. EDWARDS & SONS, ET.AL

4. 08-12431 GLANTON V. WAYNE COUNTY

5. 08-13374 JACKSON V. CERTAINTEED CORP.

6. 08-12882 GRAY V. CITY OF LINCOLN PARK, ET.AL

7. 08-13114 MILLER(DAKMAK) V. R.D. CHERRY, INC., ET.AL 

8. 08-13501 HOWARD V. WAYNE COUNTY SHERIFF’S OFFICE, ET.AL

9. 08-10740 MURRAY V. CHASE HOME FINANCE, ET.AL

10.08-14408 FIREARMS EXCHANGE V. BUREAU OF ALCOHOL, TOBACCO, 

 FIREARMS AND EXPLOSIVES

11.08-13205 DISABLED PATRIOTS OF AMERICA V. GENERAL GROWTH 

 PROPERTIES

s/Patrick J. Duggan 

Patrick J. Duggan

United States District Judge

Dated: March 31, 2009

I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record

on March 31, 2009, by electronic and/or ordinary mail.

s/Marilyn Orem 

Case Manager

*PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT TRIAL WILL NOT BEGIN BEFORE THE FINAL

PRETRIAL CONFERENCE DATE.

IF THERE IS A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT PENDING, FINAL PRETRIAL

CONFERENCE WILL BE RESCHEDULED APPROXIMATELY 10 DAYS AFTER ANY

DECISION ON SUCH MOTION.

2:08-cv-14408-PJD-SDP Doc # 18 Filed 03/31/09 Pg 1 of 1 Pg ID 442
#### Alvin Jerome BLACKMON, Respondent, v. DIRECTOR OF REVENUE, Appellant.

No. WD 47241.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.

Aug. 10, 1993.

*862Jeremiah W. (Jay) Nixon, Atty. Gen., James A. Chenault, III, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., Mo. Dept, of Revenue, Jefferson City, for appellant.

Donald Leroy Williams, Kansas City, for respondent.

Before SPINDEN, P.J., and FENNER and HANNA, JJ.

SPINDEN, Presiding Judge.

The Director of Revenue appeals the trial court’s granting hardship driving privileges to Alvin Jerome Blackmon. The director contends that Blackmon was statutorily ineligible for such relief. We agree and reverse the trial court’s judgment.

On September 1, 1992, the Department of Revenue notified Blackmon that his driving privileges had been revoked from August 23, 1992, to August 23, 1993, pursuant to § 302.525.2.1 That statute authorizes a one-year revocation for a person convicted of driving with an excessive blood alcohol content if the person’s driving record shows a prior alcohol-related incident in the preceding five years.

On November 2, 1992, Blackmon applied for hardship driving privileges. In his application, Blackmon asserted that he was not ineligible for such privileges for any of the reasons set forth in § 302.309. The trial court conducted a hearing on November 12, 1992. The prosecutor informed the court that she had no opposition to the application, and the trial court granted it.

The director claims in this appeal that the trial court erred because Blackmon was ineligible for such relief pursuant to § 302.-309.3(5)(i). That statute provides that no person is eligible to receive hardship driving privileges who has not completed a revocation handed down under § 302.525.2.

A trial court lacks jurisdiction to grant hardship driving privileges to those who are statutorily ineligible to receive them. *Eccarius v. Director of Revenue,*774 S.W.2d 574, 576 (Mo.App.1989); *Hardwick v. Director of Revenue,*760 S.W.2d 615, 616 (Mo.App.1988). Because the trial court did not have jurisdiction to consider Blackmon’s application, we reverse its judgment.

All concur.

1

. All statutory references are to the 1992 Supplement of the Revised Statutes of Missouri.
EXHIBIT 18 
1 

EXHIBIT 18 

Objectionable Fees 

Fees Associated with Motion for Preliminary Injunction (All Attorneys) 

Date Attorney Time Fee 

11/26/2009 Cody .75 225.00

11/26/2009 Cody 1.00 300.00

12/2/2009 Cody .25 75.00

11/26/2009 Davis .30 75.00

11/26/2008 Davis .30 75.00

11/26/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/1/2008 Davis .20 50.00

12/1/2008 Davis .20 50.00

12/1/2008 Davis .40 100.00

12/1/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/2/2008 Davis .20 50.00

12/2/2008 Davis .30 75.00

12/3/2008 Davis .20 50.00

12/3/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/3/2008 Davis .50 125.00

12/5/2008 Davis 1.50 375.00

12/8/2008 Davis 2.50 625.00

12/8/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/9/2008 Davis 4.00 1,000.00

12/9/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/10/2008 Davis 3.00 750.00

12/10/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/11/2008 Davis 2.00 500.00

12/11/2008 Davis 3.00 750.00

12/12/2008 Davis .10 25.00

12/12/2008 Davis 3.00 750.00

12/14/2008 Davis 3.50 875.00

12/15/2008 Davis 6.00 1,500.00

12/15/2008 Davis .20 50.00

12/18/2008 Davis 1.00 250.00

12/18/2008 Davis .30 75.00

12/18/2008 Davis .50 125.00

12/18/2008 Davis .50 125.00

12/18/2008 Davis .50 125.00

12/18/2008 Davis .50 125.00

1/5/2009 Davis .20 50.00

1/6/2009 Davis 5.00 1,250.00

1/6/2009 Davis .30 75.00

1/7/2009 Davis 3.50 875.00
2 

Objectionable Fees 

Fees Associated with Motion for Preliminary Injunction (All Attorneys) 

Date Attorney Time Fee 

1/7/2009 Davis 1.50 375.00

1/7/2009 Davis .50 125.00

1/8/2009 Davis 6.50 1,625.00

1/9/2009 Davis .70 175.00

1/9/2009 Davis 1.70 425.00

1/9/2009 Davis 3.00 750.00

1/9/2009 Davis .70 175.00

1/9/2009 Davis .80 200.00

1/11/2009 Davis 2.00 500.00

1/12/2009 Davis 6.00 1,500.00

11/26/2008 Frampton .70 175.00

12/3/2008 Frampton 1.00 250.00

12/4/2008 Frampton .50 125.00

12/4/2008 Frampton .50 125.00

12/5/2008 Frampton .50 125.00

12/15/2008 Frampton .30 75.00

12/16/2008 Frampton .20 50.00

12/17/2008 Frampton .20 50.00

12/18/2008 Frampton .10 25.00

12/18/2008 Frampton .30 75.00

12/18/2008 Frampton .10 25.00

12/19/2008 Frampton .50 125.00

12/23/2008 Frampton .50 125.00

1/6/2008 Frampton 1.20 300.00

1/6/2009 Frampton .50 125.00

1/7/2009 Frampton 3.00 750.00

1/8/2009 Frampton 4.00 1,000.00

1/9/2009 Frampton 1.00 250.00

0 0

1/6/2009 Kay .17 25.50

1/6/2009 Kay 2.42 363.00

1/8/2009 Rao .17 41.67

1/12/2009 Rao .08 20.83

Grand Total 87.64 $21,751.00

264322
VI 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. 111 

For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

JANUARY 6, 2009 

Mrs. FEINSTEIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and 

referred to the Committee on the Judiciary 

A BILL 

For the relief of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. ADJUSTMENT OF STATUS. 

4 (a) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provi5 sion of law, for the purposes of the Immigration and Na6 tionality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101 et seq.), Joseph Gabra and 

7 Sharon Kamel shall each be deemed to have been lawfully 

8 admitted to, and remained in, the United States, and shall 

9 be eligible for adjustment of status to that of an alien law10 fully admitted for permanent residence under section 245 

11 of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1255) 

12 upon filing an application for such adjustment of status. 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
2 

•S 111 IS

1 (b) APPLICATION AND PAYMENT OF FEES.—Sub2 section (a) shall apply only if the application for adjust3 ment of status is filed with appropriate fees not later than 

4 2 years after the date of the enactment of this Act. 

5 (c) REDUCTION OF IMMIGRANT VISA NUMBERS.— 

6 Upon the granting of permanent resident status to Joseph 

7 Gabra and Sharon Kamel, the Secretary of State shall in8 struct the proper officer to reduce by 2, during the current 

9 or subsequent fiscal year, the total number of immigrant 

10 visas that are made available to natives of the country of 

11 birth of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 

12 203(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 

13 1153(a)), or, if applicable, the total number of immigrant 

14 visas that are made available to natives to the country of 

15 birth of Joseph Gabra and Sharon Kamel under section 

16 202(e) of that Act (8 U.S.C. 1152(e)). 

Æ 


smartinez on PROD1PC64 with BILLS
Exhibit 32.1  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 report of Ring Energy, Inc. (the Company) on Form 10 Q for the period ended September 30, 2010, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (the Report), the undersigned principal executive and financial officer of the Company, hereby certifies 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.  Date:  November 9, 2010   /s/ Robert Steve Owens Robert Steve Owens, President and Treasurer (Principal Executive Officer and Principal Financial Officer)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION 

MELVIN MACAUALY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. Case No. 08-14097

Hon. Lawrence P. Zatkoff

TIBURON FINANCIAL, L.L.C. and

WELLS FARGO FINANCIAL NATIONAL BANK 

Defendants. 

 /

ORDER TO DISMISS IN PART

Plaintiff filed his complaint on September 24, 2008. Plaintiff’s complaint contains the

following five counts:

Count I Violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

Count II Violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act

Count III Violations of the Michigan Occupational Code 

Count IV Violation of the Fair Credit Billing Act 

Count V Violations of the Michigan Collection Practices Act 

The Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over Counts I, II, & IV because they arise under

federal law. 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Counts III & V, however, are based on state law. Although the

Court has supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the Court

may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction if there are “compelling reasons for declining

jurisdiction.” Id. § 1367(c)(4). The Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over

Plaintiff’s state-law claims in this matter. The Court finds that the contemporaneous presentation
of Plaintiff’s parallel state claims for relief will result in the undue confusion of the jury. See id.;

see also Padilla v. City of Saginaw, 867 F. Supp. 1309, 1315 (E.D. Mich. 1994). 

Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s state-law claims (Counts III & V) are hereby

DISMISSED without prejudice. The Court retains jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s federal claims

(Counts I, II, & IV).

IT IS SO ORDERED.

s/Lawrence P. Zatkoff 

LAWRENCE P. ZATKOFF

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: October 15, 2008

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that a copy of this Order was served upon the attorneys of record

by electronic or U.S. mail on October 15, 2008.

s/Marie E. Verlinde 

Case Manager

(810) 984-3290
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATIONS

I, Tay Chong
Weng, certify that:

1. I have
reviewed this quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Greater Asia Realty Holdings,
Ltd.;

2. Based on my
knowledge, this quarterly 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 quarterly report;

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

4. The small
business issuers other certifying officers 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)) for the small business issuer and
have:

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

(b)
Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuers disclosure controls
and procedures and presented in this report our 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 controls 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

15

---



(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.

Date: June
1, 2009

|                     | 
|-------------------- | 
|/s/ Tay
  Chong Weng | 
|                     | 

Tay Chong
Weng, President and CEO
(Principal Executive and Financial Officer)


16

---
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

JOHN HAMILTON, JOHN HAMILTON

TRUSTEE OF THE JOHN L. HAMILTON RETAINED

ANNUITY TRUST, JOHN HAMILTON, JR.,

JEREMY HAMILTON, MICHAEL HAMILTON,

JO-BET, INC., d/b/a HENRY VIII SOUTH, THE

GARTER BELT, INC., d/b/a LEGG’S LOUNGE,

HAMILTON’S HENRY VIII SOUTH LOUNGE, INC., and

HAMILTON BOGART, INC., d/b/a BOGART’S JOINT,

Plaintiffs,

v. Case No. 01-74698

LOCAL CASE

SUSAN HALL, LAWRENCE HALL, LAWRENCE LOKUTA, 

and the CITY OF SOUTHGATE,

(“The Southgate Defendants”), 

MARC ABDILLA, BRYCE KELLEY, and the 

TOWNSHIP OF VAN BUREN,

(“The Van Buren Defendants”),

PAUL MARTIN, KENNETH BROWN, ANTHONY

ABDULLAH, and the CITY OF INKSTER,

(“The Inkster Defendants”),

MICHAEL ONDEJKO, and the CITY OF ROMULUS,

(“The Romulus Defendants”),

Defendants.

___________________________________/

ORDER

This is a case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiffs sued various defendants

claiming a violation of constitutional rights. The parties came before the Court on June
18, 2008 for a hearing on defendants’ motions for summary judgment. This order

memorializes Court’s rulings at the hearing. It pertains only to the Local Case.

1. The Southgate Defendants and Plaintiffs indicated that they are close to a

settlement. Accordingly, proceedings on the Southgate Defendants’

Motion for Summary Judgment are STAYED.

2. Jeremy Hamilton and John Hamilton Jr. are DISMISSED as plaintiffs. The

remaining plaintiffs are: John Hamilton, John Hamilton Trustee of the

John L. Hamilton Retained Annuity Trust, Michael Hamilton, Jo-Bet, Inc.,

d/b/a Henry VIII South, The Garter Belt, Inc. d/b/a Legg’s Lounge,

Hamilton Henry VIII South Lounge, Inc., and Hamilton Bogart, Inc. d/b/a

Bogart’s Joint.

3. Plaintiffs’ claim against the City of Inkster for violation of § 1983 is

DISMISSED. 

4. Plaintiffs shall file within twenty (20) days, a Statement of Material Facts,

not to exceed twenty (20) paragraphs, detailing the factual assertions to

show that there is a genuine issue of material fact as to their claims. 

Plaintiffs shall file a separate statement for each of the following groups of

defendants: (1) the Van Buren Defendants, (2) the Inkster Defendants,

and (3) the Romulus Defendants. 

5. Plaintiffs shall file within twenty (20) days the freestanding exhibit(s)

supporting John Hamilton’s claim of improper prosecution under § 1983.

6. The Van Buren Defendants shall file within twenty (20) days a list of all the

cases, state and federal, which fall within the penumbra of this dispute,

including a brief description as to the nature of the case and its ultimate

disposition.

7. Plaintiffs shall also file within twenty (20) days a proposed verdict form,

separating the claims against each of the groups of defendants. 

8. Any objections to this order shall be filed within five (5) days.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 19, 2008 s/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 125 (Thursday, June 27, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33541-33542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16455]


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

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health Administration


NACOSH HazCom Workgroup Meeting

    Notice is hereby given that a workgroup of the National Advisory 
Committee on Occupational Safety and Health (NACOSH), established under 
section 7(a) of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (29 
U.S.C. 656) to advise the Secretary of Labor and the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services on matters relating to the administration of 
the Act, will meet on July 23 in N4437 B-D in the Department of Labor 
Building located at 200 Constitution Avenue NW, Washington, DC. If 
necessary, the meeting will be continued on July 24 in the same 
location. This meeting, which is open to the public, will run from 
10:00 am to approximately 4:00 pm the first day and, if necessary, from 
8:30 am to no longer than 3:00 pm the second day.
    The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) asked 
NACOSH to form a workgroup to identify ways to improve chemical hazard 
communication and the right-to-know in the workplace. OSHA asked the 
Committee to provide OSHA with recommendations related to 
simplification of material safety data sheets, reducing the amount of 
required paperwork, improving the effectiveness of worker training, and 
revising enforcement policies so that they focus on the most serious 
hazards.
    It is intended that this will be the final meeting of this 
workgroup. The entire meeting will be devoted to review and 
finalization of the content of its report and recommendations. This 
will involve making any necessary changes and obtaining concurrences of 
workgroup members. This report will then be transmitted to the full 
National Advisory Committee on Occupational Safety and Health for its 
action and submission to the Occupational Safety and Health 
Administration.
    Written data, views or comments for consideration by the workgroup 
may be submitted, preferably with 20 copies, to Joanne Goodell at the 
address provided below. Any such submissions will be provided to the 
members of the Workgroup and will be included in the record of the 
meeting. However, at this point they will not have any impact on the 
report. Individuals with disabilities who need special accommodations 
should contact Tom Hall (202-219-8615) a week before the meeting.
    For additional information contact: Joanne Goodell, Directorate of 
Policy, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Room N-3641, 200

[[Page 33542]]

Constitution Avenue, NW, Washington, DC, 20210, telephone (202) 219-
8021, extension 107.

    Signed at Washington, D.C. this 21st day of June, 1996.
Joseph A. Dear,
Assistant Secretary of Labor.
[FR Doc. 96-16455 Filed 6-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4510-26-M