alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 131 (Monday, July 8, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 35730-35731]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17204]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. CP96-592-000]


Williams Natural Gas Company; Notice of Request Under Blanket 
Authorization

July 1, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 21, 1996, Williams Natural Gas Company 
(WNG), P.O. Box 3288, Tulsa, Oklahoma 74101, filed in Docket No. CP96-
592-000 a request pursuant to Secs. 157.205 and 157.216 of the 
Commission's Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 157.205, 
157.216) for authorization to abandon by sale to United Cities Gas 
Company (UCG) approximately 2.0 miles of 6-inch lateral pipeline, 
measuring, regulating and appurtenant facilities located in Johnson 
County, Kansas, under WNG's blanket certificate issued in Docket No. 
CP82-479-000 pursuant to Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act, all as more 
fully set forth in the request that is on file with

[[Page 35731]]

the Commission and open to public inspection.
    WNG states that it will abandon by sale to UCG measuring (setting 
number 15165), regulating, appurtenant facilities, and approximately 
2.0 miles of the Olathe Naval Base 6-inch pipeline beginning in the 
Northwest Quarter (NW/4) of Section 6, Township 14 South, Range 23 East 
and ending in the Northeast Quarter (NE/4) of Section 18, Township 14 
South, Range 23 East, all located in Johnson County, Kansas. WNG and 
UCG agree that the facilities sought to be abandoned herein will serve 
a more useful purpose as a part of the UCG distribution system. WNG 
states that the cost associated with the abandonment of the facilities 
is estimated to be $729 with a salvage value and sales price of 
$124,430.
    WNG states that this abandonment is not prohibited by its existing 
tariff and that it has sufficient capacity to accomplish deliveries 
without detriment or disadvantage to other customers. The proposed 
abandonment will not have an effect on WNG's peak day and annual 
deliveries and the total volumes delivered will not exceed total 
volumes authorized prior to this request.
    Any person or the Commission's staff may, within 45 days after 
issuance of the instant notice by the Commission, file pursuant to Rule 
214 of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 
385.214) a motion to intervene or notice of intervention and pursuant 
to Section 157.205 of the Regulations under the Natural Gas Act (18 CFR 
157.205) a protest to the request. If no protest is filed within the 
time allowed therefor, the proposed activity shall be deemed to be 
authorized effective the day after the time allowed for filing a 
protest. If a protest is filed and not withdrawn within 30 days after 
the time allowed for filing a protest, the instant request shall be 
treated as an application for authorization pursuant to Section 7 of 
the Natural Gas Act.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-17204 Filed 7-5-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
IV 

111TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION H. RES. 94 

Urging the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain actions under the 

Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 to protect the interests 

of the taxpayer, and for other purposes. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

JANUARY 27, 2009 

Mr. HALL of New York (for himself, Mr. WELCH, Ms. KAPTUR, Mr. ARCURI, 

Mr. HIGGINS, Mr. ROTHMAN of New Jersey, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, 

Ms. HIRONO, Ms. LINDA T. SA ́NCHEZ of California, Ms. BALDWIN, and 

Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California) submitted the following resolution; 

which was referred to the Committee on Financial Services 

RESOLUTION 

Urging the Secretary of the Treasury to take certain actions 

under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 

2008 to protect the interests of the taxpayer, and for 

other purposes. 

Whereas Congress passed the Troubled Assets Relief Program in October, 2008, with the intent to prevent a collapse of the credit markets; 

Whereas since the approval of TARP more than 

$350,000,000,000 has been spent without sufficient oversight or taxpayer protections; 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
2 

•HRES 94 IH 

Whereas the national unemployment rate is the highest it has 

been for 16 years and the national foreclosure rate is the 

highest is has been in 3 decades; 

Whereas Citigroup alone has received at least 

$45,000,000,000 in taxpayer funding through the TARP 

funds; 

Whereas Citigroup has recently purchased a $50,000,000 foreign-built, luxury corporate jet, despite the fact that the 

company’s continued survival has been dependent on the 

American taxpayer for the last several months; 

Whereas in these difficult times it is unfathomable to imagine 

that taxpayer dollars are being used to buy a high-end 

corporate jet; 

Whereas the previous Secretary of the Treasury has failed to 

prevent TARP recipients like Citigroup from spending 

money contrary to congressional intent; and 

Whereas under TARP, the Secretary of the Treasury alone 

has the authority to restrict who may receive money 

under the program and what a company may do with the 

money once they receive it: Now, therefore, be it 

1 Resolved, That the House of Representatives— 

2 (1) strongly urges the Secretary of the Treas3 ury to halt the purchase of a luxury corporate jet by 

4 Citigroup or require Citigroup to reimburse the 

5 Treasury for its cost; 

6 (2) strongly urges the Secretary of the Treas7 ury to use his authority under Emergency Economic 

8 Stabilization Act of 2008 to require TARP recipi9 ents to spend the taxpayers’ money to help homeVerDate Nov 24 2008 05:19 Jan 28, 2009 Jkt 079200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\HR94.IH HR94

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
3 

•HRES 94 IH 

1 owners, small businesses, and others hurt by the re2 cession; and 

3 (3) strongly urges the Secretary of the Treas4 ury to place further restrictions on TARP recipients 

5 to limit executive compensation, golden parachutes, 

6 and unnecessary corporate perks like private planes, 

7 spa vacations, bonuses, rugs, and newly renovated 

8 offices. 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with BILLS
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 124 (Wednesday, June 26, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 33117]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16381]



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

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE BOARD


Sunshine Act Meeting Notice

ANNOUNCING AN OPEN MEETING OF THE BOARD

TIME AND DATES: 10:00 a.m. Wednesday, July 3, 1996.

PLACE: Board Room, Second Floor, Federal Housing Finance Board, 1777 F 
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20006.

STATUS: The entire meeting will be open to the public.

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED DURING PORTIONS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC: 

    <bullet> Amendment to the Membership Regulation--Final Rule
    <bullet> Financial Management Policy Technical Revisions
    <bullet> FHLBank of New York Pilot Community Mortgage Asset 
Acquisition Program
    <bullet> FHLBank of Indianapolis Proposal to Certify the Indiana 
Housing Finance Agency as a Nonmember Mortgagee
    <bullet> Approval of FHLBank President Incentive Compensation 
Plan
    <bullet> Procedures for Resolution of Outstanding Examination or 
Supervisory Issues

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:  Elaine L. Baker, Secretary to the 
Board, (202) 408-2837.
Rita I. Fair,
Managing Director.
[FR Doc. 96-16381 Filed 6-21-96; 4:53 pm]
BILLING CODE 6725-01-P
```

[Congressional Bills 104th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3591 Introduced in House (IH)]

104th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                H. R. 3591

To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the amount of 
 the premium charged for enrollment in part A of the Medicare program 
for individuals not receiving third-party assistance in payment of the 
                                premium.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                              June 5, 1996

 Mr. Stark (for himself and Mr. Matsui) introduced the following bill; 
         which was referred to the Committee on Ways and Means

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to reduce the amount of 
 the premium charged for enrollment in part A of the Medicare program 
for individuals not receiving third-party assistance in payment of the 
                                premium.

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

SECTION 1. REDUCTION IN PART A MEDICARE PREMIUM FOR CERTAIN 
              INDIVIDUALS.

    (a) In General.--Section 1818(d) of the Social Security Act (42 
U.S.C. 1395i-2(d)) is amended--
            (1) in paragraph (2), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and 
        inserting ``paragraphs (4) and (5)''; and
            (2) by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
    ``(5)(A) In the case of an individual described in subparagraph (B) 
for a month, the amount of the monthly premium shall be zero.
    ``(B) An individual described in this subparagraph for a month is 
an individual who has established to the satisfaction of the Secretary 
that--
            ``(i) the individual's premium under this section for the 
        month is not (and will not be) paid for, in whole or in part, 
        by a State (under title XIX or otherwise), a political 
        subdivision of a State, or an agency or instrumentality of one 
        or more States or political subdivisions thereof; and
            ``(ii) in each of 60 months before such month in which the 
        individual was enrolled under part A under this section, the 
        individual's premium under this section for the month was not 
        paid for, in whole or in part, by a State (under title XIX or 
        otherwise), a political subdivision of a State, or an agency or 
        instrumentality of one or more States or political subdivisions 
        thereof.''.
    (b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a) shall 
apply to premiums for months beginning with January 1997, and months 
before such month may be taken into account for purposes of meeting the 
requirement of section 1818(d)(5)(B)(ii) of the Social Security Act, as 
added by subsection (a).

                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32
 
 
 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 Saga Energy, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2011 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), we, Ilyas Chaudhary and Dading Soetarso, President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, respectively, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. §1350, as adopted pursuant to § 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.
 
 Date: November 11, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Ilyas Chaudhary
 Ilyas Chaudhary
 President
 
 Date: November 11, 2011
 
 
 /s/ Dading Soetarso
 Dading Soetarso
 Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT 8** 

 

**LIST OF EDAP TMS S.A. SUBSIDIARIES**

**(as of March 16, 2007)**

 

 

| **Name of Subsidiary**         |   | **Juridiction of Incorporation** |
|--------------------------------|--------|----------------------------------|
|                           |   |                             |
| Technomed Medical Systems S.A. |   | France                           |
| EDAP S.A.                      |   | France                           |
| EDAP Technomed  S.r.l.         |   | Italy                            |
| EDAP Technomed, Inc.           |   | United States                    |
| EDAP Technomed Co. Ltd.        |   | Japan                            |
| EDAP Technomed Sdn Bhd         |   | Malaysia                         |
| EDAP GmbH                      |   | Germany                          |
|                           |   |                             |
|                           |   |                             |
#### Michael Andrea RICE, Appellant, v. The STATE of Texas, Appellee.

No. 962-92.

Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, En Banc.

Sept. 29, 1993.

Steve Hebert, Baytown, for appellant.

Michael R. Little, Dist. Atty., Anne Streit, Asst. Dist. Atty., Liberty, Robert Huttash, State’s Atty., and Matthew W. Paul, Asst. State’s Atty., Austin, for the State.

*OPINION ON APPELLANT’S PETITION FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW*

McCORMICK, Presiding Judge.

A jury convicted appellant of burglary of a building with intent to commit theft and assessed punishment at confinement for ninety-nine years. See V.T.C.A, Penal Code, Section 30.02(a)(1). Appellant previously was convicted of theft. See V.T.C.A, Penal Code, Section 31.03. The State subsequently prosecuted appellant for the present offense. Both offenses arose out of the same transaction. In a direct appeal to the Beaumont Court of Appeals, appellant claimed in a single point of error that his conviction for the present offense violates the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and *Grady v. Corbin,*495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548 (1990). The Court of Appeals disagreed, and affirmed the conviction. *Rice v. State,*831 S.W.2d 599 (Tex.App.—Beaumont 1992). We granted appellant’s petition for discretionary review to address the double jeopardy question. We will affirm.

The Supreme Court recently overruled *Grady*in *United States v. Dixon,*509 U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). In successive prosecution contexts, we apply the “same-elements” test set out in *Blockburger v. United States,*284 U.S. 299, 52 S.Ct. 180, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932); see also *Dixon,*509 U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at-. This test inquires whether each offense contains an element not contained in the other; if not, double jeopardy bars a successive prosecution. See *id.*

Appellant’s conviction on the burglary charge following his conviction on the theft *926charge is not barred under *Blockburger*because the burglary and the theft offenses contain an element the other does not contain. The theft charge requires the State to prove appropriation of property without the owner’s effective consent; the burglary charge does not. Compare Section 31.03 *with*Section 30.02(a)(1). The burglary charge requires the State to prove entry into a building not open to the public without effective consent of the owner; the theft charge does not. Compare Section 30.-02(a)(2) *with*Section 31.03.

The Court of Appeals’ judgment is affirmed.

CLINTON, MILLER and MALONEY, JJ., concur.

WHITE, J., not participating.
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 126 (Friday, June 28, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 33794-33795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16608]


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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA)


Reports, Forms and Recordkeeping Requirements Agency Information 
Collection Activity Under OMB Review

AGENCY: Research and Special Programs Administration (RSPA), DOT.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: In compliance with the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

[[Page 33795]]

3501 et seq.), this notice announces that the Information Collection 
Request (ICR) abstracted below has been forwarded to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for review and comment. The ICR describes 
the nature of the information collection and its expected cost and 
burden. The Federal Register Notice with a 60-day comment period 
soliciting comments on the following collection of information was 
published on April 15, 1996 (61 FR 16528).

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before July 24, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marvin Fell, (202) 366-6205, Office of 
Pipeline Safety, Research and Special Programs Administration, 
Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, S.W., Washington, DC 
20590 and refer to the OMB Control Number.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

    Title: Customer-Owned Service Lines.
    OMB Control Number: 2137--New.
    Abstract: An RSPA regulation (49 CFR 192.16) requires operators of 
gas service lines who do not maintain buried customer piping up to 
building walls or certain other locations to notify their customers of 
the need to maintain that piping. Congress directed DOT to take this 
action in view of service line accidents. By advising customers of the 
need to maintain their buried gas piping, the notices may reduce the 
risk of further accidents.
    The regulation requires each operator to notify each customer not 
later than August 14, 1996, or 90 days after the customer first 
receives gas at a particular location, whichever is later. However, 
operators of master meter systems may continuously post a general 
notice in a prominent location frequented by customers. In addition, 
each operator must make the following records available for inspection 
by RSPA or a State agency participating under 49 U.S.C. 60105 or 60106: 
(1) a copy of the notice currently in use; and (2) evidence that 
notices have been sent to customers within the previous 3 years.
    Respondents: Gas transmission and distribution operators.
    Estimated Number of Respondents: 1,590.
    Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: Minimal.
    Send comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 
Office of Management and Budget, 725-17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 
20503, Attention RSPA Desk Officer.

    Issued in Washington, DC, on June 21, 1996.
Phillip A. Leach,
Clearance Officer, United States Department of Transportation.
[FR Doc. 96-16608 Filed 6-27-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-60-P
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.

, Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Stephen J. Markman

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano

, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_________________________________________ Clerk May 16, 2013

jam 

# Order

May 16, 2013

146604

IN RE KNOP

________________

LORI KNOP,

Plaintiff,

v SC: 1 46604

CoA: 311117

WASHTENAW CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE

,

Defendant.

___________________________________

On order of the Chief Justice, plaintiff

- appellant having failed to pay the

partial filing fee as required by the order of February 5, 2013, the Clerk of the Court is

hereby directed to close this file.
DISTRICT JUDGE'S MINUTES

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF ARIZONA – PHOENIX

U.S. District Judge: Susan M. Brnovich Date: October 5, 2021 

USA v. Lacey et al Case Number: CR-18-00422-PHX-SMB

Defendant-1: Michael Lacey, present and released

Attorney for Defendant (1): Paul Cambria, Jr. and Erin McCampbell Paris (telephonic), Retained

Defendant-2: James Larkin, present and released

Attorney for Defendant (2): Thomas Bienert, Jr. and Whitney Bernstein, Retained

Defendant-3: Scott Spear, present and released

Attorney for Defendant (3): Bruce Feder, Retained

Defendant-4: John Brunst, present and released

Attorney for Defendant (4): Gary Lincenberg and Gopi Panchapakesan (telephonic), Retained

Defendant-6: Andrew Padilla, present and released

Attorney for Defendant (6): David Eisenberg, CJA Appointment

Defendant-7: Joye Vaught, not present and released (presence waived)

Attorney for Defendant (7): Joy Bertrand, CJA Appointment (telephonic)

STATUS HEARING: 

This is the time set for Status Hearing. Discussion held regarding the Court’s proposed trial schedule. 

The Government has no objections. Other than the conflicts stated on the record by Mr. Beinert and Mr. 

Lincenberg, Defendants do not object to the new schedule. Defendants waive time from now until the 

new trial date. The parties are directed to review the prior juror questionnaires and submit changes, if 

any, to the Court by not later than October 12, 2021. Defendant Spear’s request for additional Motions 

in Limine is DENIED. 

IT IS ORDERED that jury selection will begin on February 9, 2022 at 9:00 a.m. Trial will commence 

on February 22, 2022. All applicable time is excluded. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED setting a Status Hearing re: Juror Questionnaires on January 31, 2022

at 9:00 a.m. to be held via ZOOM. 

LATER: The parties raised the issue of funding for the defense and requested a briefing schedule. IT 

IS ORDERED that Defendants file a motion regarding release of funds for their defense by no later than 

October 26, 2021. The Government’s response is due by October 9, 2021 and Defendants reply by 

November 16, 2021.

Court Reporter Christine Coaly

Deputy Clerk Elaine Garcia

SH: 22 mins 

Start: 11:02 AM

Stop: 11:24 AM

Assistant U.S. Attorneys: Andrew Stone, Peter Kozinets, Kevin Rapp, Margaret Perlmeter, and 

Reginald Jones

Case 2:18-cr-00422-DJH Document 1336 Filed 10/05/21 Page 1 of 1
#### Gary WASHINGTON, Plaintiff/Appellant, v. STATE of Missouri, Defendant/Respondent.

No. 65385.

Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District, Division Five.

Aug. 23, 1994.

Elizabeth R. Haines, St. Louis, for appellant.

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

Before GRIMM, C.J., and CRIST and CARL R. GAERTNER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Defendant, Gary T. Washington, appeals from the denial of his Rule 24.035 motion without an evidentiary hearing.

No jurisprudential purpose would be served by a written opinion. However, the parties have been furnished with a memorandum opinion for their information only, setting forth the facts and reasons for this order.

The judgment is affirmed in accordance with Rule 84.16(b).
Fialka-Feldman v. Oakland University Board of Trustees Doc. 43 Att. 9

Dockets.Justia.com
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Plaintiff/Counter-Defendant,

vs

ADIL SHAFI,

Defendant/Counter-Plaintiff/

Third-Party Plaintiff,

vs

FREDERICK WEIDINGER

And BRAINTECH, INC.,

Third-Party Defendant/

Counter-Defendant.

Case No. 09-cv-10454

Hon.Victoria A. Roberts

APPEARANCE

TO: CLERK OF THE COURT

Please enter the Appearance of Michelle L. Alamo of Dickinson Wright PLLC as counsel 

on behalf of Frederick Weidinger, Only, in the above-entitled matter.

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

By: s/ Michelle L. Alamo

Michelle L. Alamo (P60684)

Attorneys for Frederick Weidinger, Only

500 Woodward Ave, Suite 4000

Detroit, Michigan 48226

Tel: 313.223.3500

Fax: 313.223.3598

Dated: February 28, 2011 Email: malamo@dickinsonwright.com

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 90 Filed 02/28/11 Page 1 of 2
2

I hereby certify that on February 28, 2011, I electronically 

filed the foregoing paper with the Clerk of the Court using 

the ECF system which will send notification of such filing to 

counsel of record.

/s/ Michelle L. Alamo (P60684)

DICKINSON WRIGHT PLLC

500 Woodward Avenue, Suite 4000

Detroit, Michigan 48226

(313) 223-3500

malamo@dickinsonwright.com

DETROIT 49763-1 1194711v1

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 90 Filed 02/28/11 Page 2 of 2