alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Page 34805]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16929]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
[Docket No. GT96-69-000]


KO Transmission Company; Notice of Compliance Filing

June 27, 1996.
    Take notice that on June 21, 1996, KO Transmission Company (KO 
Transmission) filed its FERC Gas Tariff, Original Volume No. 1, on 
electronic media.
    KO Transmission states that the purpose of the filing is to comply 
with the Letter Order issued by the Director of the Office of Pipeline 
Regulation on May 21, 1996, in the above-captioned docket.
    Any person desiring to protest with said filing should file a 
protest with the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First 
Street, N.E., Washington, D.C. 20426, in accordance with the 
requirements of the Commission's Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 
CFR Section 385.211). All such protest must be filed as provided in 
Section 154.210 of the Commission's Regulations. All protests filed 
with Commission will be considered by it in determining the appropriate 
action to be taken but will not serve to make the protestants parties 
to the proceeding. Copies of this filing are on file with the 
Commission and are available for public inspection in the Public 
Reference Room.
Lois D. Cashell,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-16929 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-M
EXHIBIT 31.2

SECTION 302 CERTIFICATION OF PRINCIPAL ACCOUNTING OFFICER

I, Christopher P. Chambers, certify that:

1.

I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Evolution Resources, Inc.

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.

I am responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and have:

a)

designed such disclosure controls and procedures to ensure that material information relating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to me by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this quarterly report is being prepared;

b)

evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and procedures as of a date within 90 days prior to the filing date of this quarterly report (the Evaluation Date); and

c)

presented in this quarterly report my conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on my evaluation as of the Evaluation Date;

5.

I have disclosed, based on my most recent evaluation, to the registrants auditors and the audit committee of registrants board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

a)

all significant deficiencies in the design or operation of internal controls which could adversely affect the registrants ability to record, process, summarize and report financial data and have identified for the registrants auditors any material weaknesses in internal controls; and

b)

any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrants internal controls

6.

I have indicated in this quarterly report whether or not there were significant changes in internal controls or in other factors that could significantly affect internal controls subsequent to the date of my most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: September 21, 2009

| |                                                                 
| | ----------------------------------------------------------------
| |                                                                 
| | /s/ Christopher P. Chambers                                     
| | Christopher P. Chambers                                         
| | Title: Executive Vice President and
Principal Accounting Officer
## SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK 

## Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department

**1492 KA 09-01036**  PRESENT: CENTRA, J.P., LINDLEY, SCONIERS, GREEN, AND GORSKI, JJ.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK, RESPONDENT,

V OPINION AND ORDER
PIERRE D. COSBY, DEFENDANT-APPELLANT. (APPEAL NO. 2.)

LINDA M. CAMPBELL, SYRACUSE, FOR DEFENDANT-APPELLANT.
WILLIAM J. FITZPATRICK, DISTRICT ATTORNEY, SYRACUSE (VICTORIA M. WHITE OF COUNSEL), FOR RESPONDENT.

Appeal, by permission of a Justice of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the Fourth Judicial Department, from an order of the Supreme Court, Onondaga County (John J. Brunetti, A.J.), entered May 14, 2009. The order denied the motion of defendant to vacate his conviction pursuant to CPL 440.10.
It is hereby ORDERED that the order so appealed from is unanimously affirmed.
Same Opinion by C ENTRA , J.P., as in People v Cosby ([appeal No. 1] ___ AD3d ___ [Feb. 10, 2011]).

Entered: February 10, 2011 Patricia L. Morgan Clerk of the Court
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

FRED REEVES,

Plaintiff, CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-CV-10322-AA

vs.

 DISTRICT JUDGE GEORGE CARAM STEEH

KAREN PETERS, MAGISTRATE JUDGE MONA K. MAJZOUB

et al.,

Defendants.

________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’

 MOTION TO STAY DISCOVERY

This matter comes before the Court on Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery filed on March

18, 2009. (Docket no. 32). Defendants seek a stay of discovery until further order of the Court

because they have filed a Motion to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status. (Docket no. 25). Plaintiff has

not responded, and the time for responding has now expired. All pretrial matters have been referred

to the undersigned for decision. (Docket no. 6). The Court dispenses with oral argument on this

motion pursuant to E.D. Mich. LR 7.1(e). This matter is now ready for ruling.

This Court has recommended that this action be dismissed pursuant to Defendants’ Motion

to Revoke Plaintiff’s IFP Status. (Docket no. 33). Discovery should therefore be stayed until

Defendants’ motion has been resolved. See Skousen v. Brighton High School, 305 F.3d 520, 526-27

(6th Cir. 2002) (staying discovery for pending motion for summary judgment). In accordance with

this authority, discovery will be stayed pending resolution of Defendants’ Motion to Revoke

Plaintiff’s IFP Status.

-1-

2:09-cv-10322-GCS-MKM Doc # 36 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 204
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Stay Discovery (docket no.

32) is GRANTED, and discovery is stayed until further order of the Court. 

NOTICE TO THE PARTIES

Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), the parties have a period of ten days from the date of this

Order within which to file any written appeal to the District Judge as may be permissible under 28

U.S.C. 636(b)(1).

Dated: April 03, 2009 s/ Mona K. Majzoub 

MONA K. MAJZOUB

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

PROOF OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a copy of this Opinion and Order was served upon Fred Reeves and

Counsel of Record on this date.

Dated: April 03, 2009 s/ Lisa C. Bartlett 

Courtroom Deputy

-2-

2:09-cv-10322-GCS-MKM Doc # 36 Filed 04/03/09 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 205
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 3, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 34789-34790]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-16902]


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

NATIONAL FOUNDATION ON THE ARTS AND HUMANITIES


Cooperative Agreement for the Continuation of a Project Titled: 
``Your Town: Designing its Future''

AGENCY: National Endowment for the Arts.

ACTION: Notificaton of availability.

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

SUMMARY: The National Endowment for the Arts requests proposals leading 
to the award of a Cooperative Agreement for the continuation of the 
workshops successfully carried out from 1991 to 1995 by the National 
Trust for Historic Preservation under the project ``Your Town: 
Designing its Future.'' The purpose of ``Your Town'' is to address the 
needs of rural communities, and to help rural Americans to learn how to 
identify, protect, and enhance their towns and landscapes by promoting 
the benefits of good design, encouraging the sharing of successful 
techniques, and providing a support system for those who are working on 
community design problems. Responsibilities under the Cooperative 
Agreement will include operating a national center to coordinate the 
``Your Town'' activities, including three workshops, publishing a 
biannual newsletter, and producing a publication focusing on three or 
four case study communities. Those interested in receiving the 
Solicitation should reference Program Solicitation PS 96-04 in their 
written request and include two (2) self-addressed labels. Verbal 
requests for the Solicitation will not be honored.

DATES: Program Solicitation PS 96-04 is scheduled for release 
approximately July 19, 1996 with proposals due on August 19, 1996.


[[Page 34790]]


ADDRESS: Requests for the Solicitation should be addressed to National 
Endowment for the Arts, Grants & Contracts Office, Room 618, 1100 
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20506.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William I. Hummel, Grants and Contracts Office, National Endowment for 
the Arts, 1100 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20506 (202/682-
5482).
William I. Hummel,
Coordinator, Cooperative Agreements and Contracts.
[FR Doc. 96-16902 Filed 7-2-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7537-01-M
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 134 (Thursday, July 11, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 36605-36606]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17428]


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

OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES TRADE REPRESENTATIVE


Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for Trade; Meeting

AGENCY: Office of the United States Trade Representative.

ACTION: Notice that the Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for 
Trade will hold meetings during the period beginning July 15, 1996 
through November 30, 1996. These meetings will be closed to the public.

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

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee of Trade will hold 
meetings beginning July 15, 1996 through November 30, 1996. The 
meetings will include a review and discussion of current issues which 
influence U.S. agricultural trade policy that include, but are not 
limited to, issues concerning WTO accession negotiations with various 
countries; U.S./Mexico bilateral agricultural trade issues; U.S./Canada 
bilateral agricultural trade issues; Chile NAFTA accession 
negotiations; international sanitary and phytosanitary barriers to 
trade; implementation of USDA's Long-term Agricultural Trade Strategy, 
and WTO Uruguay Round Agreement implementation issues. Pursuant to 
section 2155(f)(2) of title 19 of the United States Code, the U.S. 
Trade Representative has determined that these meetings will be 
concerned solely with matters the disclosure of which would seriously 
compromise the development by the United States Government of trade 
policy priorities, negotiating objectives, and bargaining positions. 
Accordingly, these meetings will be closed to the public.

DATES: The meetings are scheduled beginning July 15, 1996 through 
November 30, 1996, unless otherwise notified.

ADDRESSES: The meetings will be held at the U.S. Department of 
Agriculture, 14th & Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250, 
unless otherwise notified.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Clayton Parker, Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, Office of the

[[Page 36606]]

United States Trade Representative, (202) 395-6120 or John Winski, 
Joint Executive Secretary, Agricultural Policy Advisory Committee for 
Trade, Foreign Agricultural Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, at 
(202) 720-6829.

Charlene Barshefsky,

Acting United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 96-17428 Filed 7-10-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410-10-M
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

EASTERN DISTRICT

IN THE INTEREST OF: F.R.P., JR., A 

MINOR

PETITION OF: F.R.P., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 46 EAL 2017

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 1st day of March, 2017, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

STEVEN ALLEN THOMASON, #376662,

 

Petitioner, Civil No. 2:09-11012 

Honorable Gerald E. Rosen

v.

NICK LUDWICK,

Respondent.

__________________________________/

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR "LEAVE TO FILE

AMENDED PETITION DELETING NON-EXHAUSTED ISSUES" [dkt. #34] AND

ORDERING RESPONDENT TO FILE SUPPLEMENTAL ANSWER

Petitioner Steven Allen Thomason filed a pro se petition for writ of habeas corpus

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254. He was convicted in Oakland County Circuit Court of

second-degree criminal sexual conduct, MICH. COMP. LAWS §750.520c(1)(a). Petitioner is

presently incarcerated at Mid-Michigan Correctional Facility in St. Louis, Michigan. He was

sentenced to four years nine months to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Pending before the

Court is Petitioner's motion for "leave to file amended petition deleting non-exhausted

issues" [dkt. #34]. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant the motion.

On February 3, 2010, this Court issued an order denying Respondent's motion to

dismiss the petition which was filed on the grounds that the petition contained two

unexhausted claims. The Court found that Petitioner's admission of hearsay and great

weight of the evidence claims were not exhausted. The Court gave Petitioner the option

to either drop these two claims from his petition or to have his petition dismissed without

2:09-cv-11012-GER-DAS Doc # 35 Filed 02/10/11 Pg 1 of 2 Pg ID 811
2

prejudice so that he could return to state court to exhaust these claims.

On May 26, 2010, Petitioner chose the first option, and filed the present motion

seeking leave to delete his two unexhausted claims. The motion states that it was

accompanied by a document titled "Petitioner's Amendment to Petition," but to date no

such document has been filed with the Court. 

Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for "Leave to File Amended Petition

Deleting Non-Exhausted Issues" [dkt. #34] is GRANTED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Petitioner shall file an amended petition within fortyfive (45) days of this order. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Respondent shall file an answer within forty-five

(45) days after receipt of the amended petition.

s/Gerald E. Rosen 

Chief Judge, United States District Court

Dated: February 10, 2011

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

on February 10, 2011, by electronic mail and upon Steven Thomason, #376662, Central

Michigan Correctional Facility (STF), 8201 N. Croswell Road, St. Louis, MI 48880 by

ordinary mail.

s/Ruth A. Gunther 

Case Manager

2:09-cv-11012-GER-DAS Doc # 35 Filed 02/10/11 Pg 2 of 2 Pg ID 812
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 159-7 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 3419
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 159-7 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 3420
2:09-cv-10454-VAR-LJM Doc # 159-7 Filed 06/21/13 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 3421
**Exhibit 23.1****CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**We consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration Statement Nos. 333-102593, 333-104958,333-107756 and 333-108889 on Form S-3 and Registration Statement Nos. 333-35751, 333-88635,333-43834, 333-70952, 333-96963, 333-107008, 333-121533, 333-127662, 333-134874, and 333-145242 onForm S-8 of our reports dated March 14, 2008, relating to the financial statements and financialstatement schedule of Dot Hill Systems Corp. and subsidiaries (the “Company”) (which reportexpresses an unqualified opinion and includes an explanatory paragraph relating to the adoption ofFinancial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) Interpretation No. 48, *Accounting for Uncertainty inIncome Taxes — an interpretation of FASB Statement No. 109*, effective January 1, 2007, and of FASBStatement No. 123 (revised 2004), *Share-Based Payment,*effective January 1, 2006) and theeffectiveness of the Company’s internal control over financial reporting, appearing in this AnnualReport on Form 10-K of Dot Hill Systems Corp. and subsidiaries for the year ended December 31,2007./s/DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLPSan Diego, CA
```

[Congressional Bills 111th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 1108 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

111th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                S. 1108

To require application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the 
  calculation of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for each all-
                         urban and rural State.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                              May 20, 2009

Mr. Lautenberg (for himself, Mr. Menendez, Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Lieberman) 
introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the 
                          Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To require application of budget neutrality on a national basis in the 
  calculation of the Medicare hospital wage index floor for each all-
                         urban and rural State.

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

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Safeguarding Our Hospitals' Futures 
Act of 2009''.

SEC. 2. APPLICATION OF BUDGET NEUTRALITY ON A NATIONAL BASIS IN THE 
              CALCULATION OF THE MEDICARE HOSPITAL WAGE INDEX FLOOR FOR 
              EACH ALL-URBAN AND RURAL STATE.

    In the case of discharges occurring on or after October 1, 2009, 
for purposes of applying section 4410 of the Balanced Budget Act of 
1997 (42 U.S.C. 1395ww note) and paragraph (h)(4) of section 412.64 of 
title 42, Code of Federal Regulations, the Secretary of Health and 
Human Services shall administer subsection (b) of such section 4410 and 
paragraph (e) of such section 412.64 in the same manner as the 
Secretary administered such subsection (b) and paragraph (e) for 
discharges occurring during fiscal year 2008 (through a uniform, 
national adjustment to the area wage index).
                                 <all>
```
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

BRAINTECH, INC.,

Plaintiff and Counter-defendant

v.

ADIL SHAFI

Defendant and Counter-claimant

v.

FREDERICK WEIDINGER

Counter-Defendant.

___________________________________ /

Case Number: 09-10454

VICTORIA A. ROBERTS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

VIRGINIA M. MORGAN

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY

This matter is before the court on the Motion to Compel Discovery (#22) filed by

Braintech and Weidinger. Oral argument was held before the magistrate judge. For the reasons

stated on the record, IT IS ORDERED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Counsel have agreed between themselves as to a plan for production of documents

which will be completed no later than January 18, 2010. 

2. With respect to Interrogatory #8, Shafi adopts his response as set forth in the joint list

of unresolved issues and agrees to supplement/amend the previous response to reflect the same.

The request to compel further response is denied. 

3. With respect to Interrogatory #9, Shafi adopts his response as set forth in the joint list

of unresolved issues and agrees to supplement/amend the previous response to reflect the same.

The request to compel further response is denied. 

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 26 Filed 01/13/10 Page 1 of 2
2

4. With respect to Interrogatories 10, 11, and 12: Shafi represents that no one beside

Weidinger represented relevant matters on behalf of Braintech. The request to compel further

response is denied. 

5. With respect to Interrogatory 14, Shafi adopts his response as set forth in the joint list

of unresolved issues and agrees to supplement/amend the previous response to reflect the same.

The request to compel further response is denied. 

6. With respect to Interrogatory 15, Shafi adopts his response as set forth in the joint

list of unresolved issues and agrees to supplement/amend the previous response to reflect the

same. The request to compel further response is denied. 

NO COSTS TO EITHER SIDE. 

SO ORDERED.

S/Virginia M. Morgan 

Virginia M. Morgan

United States Magistrate Judge

Dated: January 13, 2010

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon counsel of record via the Court’s

ECF System and/or U. S. Mail on January 13, 2010.

s/Jane Johnson 

Case Manager to

Magistrate Judge Virginia M. Morgan

Case 2:09-cv-10454-VAR-VMM Document 26 Filed 01/13/10 Page 2 of 2
#### Vivian Juanita TURNER v. OWENS-CORNING FIBERGLAS CORPORATION et al.

No. 09-89-00121-CV.

Supreme Court of Texas.

May 2, 1990.

Petitioner’s motion to dismiss pursuant to settlement is granted. Petitioner’s motion for rehearing is dismissed as moot. The order of this Court of December 20, 1989 denying the application for writ of error is withdrawn, and the application for writ of error is granted.

The judgments and opinions of the courts below are vacated and set aside and the cause is remanded to the trial court for entry of judgment in accordance with the settlement agreement of the parties.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF MONTANA No. DA 20
- 0551 STATE OF MONTANA,

Plaintiff and Appellee, v. MARGARET BEAR,

Defendant and Appellant.

**ORDER** Upon consideration of Appellant’s motion for extension of time, and good cause appearing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Appellant is granted an extension of time to and including May 10, 2021 , within which to prepare, file, and serve Appellant’s opening brief on appeal.

Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

April 3 2021

04/05/2021

Case Number: DA 20-0551