alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 171 (Wednesday, September 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 51556-51557]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-20373]


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

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS


Enhanced-Use Lease of VA Property for the Improvement and 
Operation of the Memorial Stadium at the Department of Veterans Affairs 
Medical Center, Chillicothe, OH

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).

ACTION: Notice of Intent To Enter into an Enhanced-Use Lease.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) 
intends to enter into an enhanced-use lease of approximately 4.273 
acres of underutilized land and improvements at the VA Medical Center 
in Chillicothe, Ohio. The selected lessee will finance, preserve, 
improve, design, build, operate, manage and maintain the property, 
which includes the VA Memorial Stadium and its accessory facilities 
(e.g., bleachers, dressing rooms, concession buildings, playground, and 
a grassy area adjacent to the stadium). As consideration for the lease, 
the lessee will be required to make annual capital improvements, pay VA 
fair market annual rent, and allow VA to use the stadium at no cost for 
mission-related events at least 5 times annually during the lease term. 
The value of the consideration meets or exceeds the net present value 
of the property to be leased.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Edward Bradley, Office of Asset 
Enterprise Management (044C), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 
Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 461-7778 (this is not 
a toll-free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title 38 U.S.C. 8161 et seq. states that the 
Secretary may enter into an enhanced-use lease if he determines that 
implementation of a business plan proposed by the Under Secretary for 
Health for applying the consideration under such a lease for the 
provision of medical care and services would result in a demonstrable 
improvement of services to eligible veterans in the geographic service-
delivery area within which the property is located. This project meets 
this requirement.


[[Page 51557]]


    Approved: July 17, 2008.
James B. Peake,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
[FR Doc. E8-20373 Filed 9-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

444444444444444444444444444

ON MOTION FOR REHEARING

444444444444444444444444444

NO. 03-05-00229-CV

Avraham Raphael, Appellant

v.

Texas Department of Agriculture and Sysco Food Services of Houston, Appellees

FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, 98TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT

NO. GN402013, HONORABLE PETER M. LOWRY, JUDGE PRESIDING

S U P P L E M E N T A L M E M O R A N D U M O P I N I O N

Appellant Avraham Raphael filed a motion for rehearing complaining of this Court’s

dismissal of his appeal for want of jurisdiction. Tex. R. App. P. 42.3(a). His motion asks us to apply

criminal law to his civil suit that seeks $43 million in damages, grant a new trial, and appoint counsel

to assist with his negligence and contract claims, which are based on events that allegedly occurred

in 1989, against the Texas Department of Agriculture and Sysco Food Services of Houston.

We do not grant appellant’s requests because (i) the district court’s orderis no longer

subject to challenge by a motion for new trial or appeal, see Tex. R. App. P. 26.1, Tex. R. Civ. P.

329b(f); and (ii) he has not shown that his is an “exceptional case[] in which the public and private

interests at stake are such that the administration of justice may be best served by appointing a
In any event, we note that the statute of limitations may affect appellant’s claims. See Tex. 1

Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. §§ 16.003(a), .004(a) (West 2002).

2

lawyer to represent an indigent civil litigant.” See Tex. Gov’t Code Ann. § 24.016 (West 2004);

Spigener v. Wallis, 80 S.W.3d 174, 183 (Tex. App.—Waco 2002, no pet.) (citing Travelers Indem.

Co. v. Mayfield, 923 S.W.2d 590, 594 (Tex. 1996)); Coleman v. Lynaugh, 934 S.W.2d 837, 839

(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1996, no writ). Moreover, he does not cite any part of the record

showing that he requested the district court to appoint counsel and the court denied his request. See

Tex. R. App. P. 33.1.

Appellant attempted to challenge a district court order signed and entered on August

25, 2004, that dismissed his lawsuit as frivolous. See Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 14.003

(West 2002). As noted in our prior opinion, appellant’s deadline for perfecting appeal has expired.

See Tex. R. App. P. 26.1. Because the district court’s order is no longer subject to challenge by a

motion for new trial or appeal, appellant’s remedy, if any, lies with a bill of review. Tex. R. Civ. P.

329b(f); Caldwell v. Barnes, 154 S.W.3d 93, 96 (Tex. 2004). Accordingly, we overrule appellant’s 1

motion for rehearing.

 

Jan P. Patterson, Justice

Before Chief Justice Law, Justices Patterson and Puryear

Filed: November 18, 2005
##### 



EXHIBIT 32.2 CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 In connection with this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of Maxco, Inc. (the Company) for the period
ended December 31, 2003 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof
(the Report), I, Vincent Shunsky, as Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: (1) This Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and (2) Information contained in this Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and result of operations of the Company. Date: February 14, 2005/s/ Vincent ShunskyVincent ShunskyChief Financial Officer
 A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906 has been provided to the
Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission
or its staff upon request.
#### FRIEDRICH v. HANDY ANDY COMMUNITY STORES OF LOUISIANA, Inc. et al.

No. 5093.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit.

Dec. 13, 1935.

H. W. Ayres, of Jonesboro, and Barks-dale, Bullock, Warren, Clark & Van Hook,' of Shreveport, for appellants.

J. Fair Hardin, of Shreveport, for ap-pellee.

MILLS, Judge.

This is a suit by executory process upon a note secured by chattel mortgage upon two refrigerating units. The action is originally brought against Handy Andy Community Stores of Louisiana, Inc., mortgagor. Demand was made upon Dr. A. E. Simonton, third possessor and claimant, as owner, to either pay the debt or surrender the property. He answered, basing his defense upon his title as transferee of negotiable shipper’s order bills of lading.

This issue, going to trial upon a statement of facts, was decided adversely to the third possessor, who has appealed. In this court he has filed a plea of peremption founded upon the following provision of the Chattel Mortgage Act, No. 198 of 1918, § 7, as amended by Act No. 232 of 1924: “And provided further that the effect of a chattel mortgage shall cease if the inscription thereof has not been renewed, in the same manner in which it was first made, within five (5) years from the date thereof.”

The chattel mortgage was recorded March 9, 1929. There is no proof that it has ever been reinscribed. Suit was filed May 11, 1929, submitted for decision November 16, 1934, judgment was rendered January 18, 1935, and signed March 12, 1935. Peremption, then, became effective after the date of the filing of the suit and before its submission and judgment. The plea must be sustained unless the filing of the suit operated as an interruption. The following cases hold squarely that it does not: Hyde v. Bennett, 2 La.Ann. 799; Hyatt v. Gallier, 6 La.Ann. 321; Adams v. Daunis, 29 La.Ann. 315; Watson v. Bondurant, 30 La.Ann. 1; Murff v. Ratcliff, 19 La.App. 109, 138 So. 908; Barelli v. Delassus, 16 La.Ann. 280; McDaniel v. Smith, 13 La.App. 61, 127 So. 108.

“Where the plea of prescription is filed in the Supreme Court, and the record shows that the obligation on which the judgment of the lower court is founded is prescribed, *487and the appellee does not ask that the case be remanded to enable the holder to show an interruption, the plea will be maintained in the Supreme Court.” Long v. Succession of Scott, 21 La.Ann. 120.

The judgment appealed from is accordingly reversed, and judgment now rendered sustaining the plea of'peremption filed by Dr. A. E. Simonton, decreeing the mortgage sued upon to be of no effect, and dismissing plaintiff’s suit.

Section 2 of Act No. 229 of 1910 gives to appellate courts the power to tax costs as deemed equitable.

In this case plaintiff had a cause of action when the suit was filed. The plea of peremption was not interposed until after the case reached this court.' We deem it equitable, and so order, that Dr. A. E. Si-monton pay the costs of the lower court and plaintiff those of appe&l.
| **Segment Information (Details)**  | Jun. 30, 2011 |
|------------------------------------|---------------|
| **Segment Information [Abstract]** | Â             |
| Number of reportable segments      | 1             |

| X                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                         |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Definition
A component of an entity for which there is an accounting requirement to report separate financial information on that component in the entity's financial statements.
+ Details**Name:**ftr_NumberOfReportableSegments**Namespace Prefix:**ftr**Data Type:**xbrli:integerItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**instant |
| X                                                                                                                                                           |
|-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| - Details**Name:**us-gaap_SegmentReportingAbstract**Namespace Prefix:**us-gaap**Data Type:**xbrli:stringItemType**Balance Type:**na**Period Type:**duration |
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   9-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               SEP-30-1998
<CASH>                                             813
<SECURITIES>                                 2,097,492
<RECEIVABLES>                                        0
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                     0
<PP&E>                                           1,227
<DEPRECIATION>                                    (530)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               2,483,940
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           38,070
<BONDS>                                         50,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           319
<OTHER-SE>                                     510,291
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 2,483,940
<SALES>                                         22,041
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                               186,531
<CGS>                                                0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                               129,791
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               5,546
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 56,740
<INCOME-TAX>                                    18,059
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             38,681
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    38,681
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     1.20
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     1.20
        

</TABLE>
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 123

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the fiscal year

2003, and for other purposes.

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

3 That Public Law 107–229 is further amended by striking
2

•HJ 123 EH

1 the date specified in section 107(c) and inserting in lieu

2 thereof ‘‘November 22, 2002’’.

Passed the House of Representatives October 16,

2002.

Attest:

Clerk.
107TH CONGRESS

2D SESSION H. J. RES. 123

JOINT RESOLUTION

Making further continuing appropriations for the

fiscal year 2003, and for other purposes.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               MAR-31-1997
<CASH>                                         113,459
<SECURITIES>                                       238
<RECEIVABLES>                                   12,653
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               153,960
<PP&E>                                         804,321
<DEPRECIATION>                                  57,736
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 950,964
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                           45,260
<BONDS>                                        459,757
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                       340,385
<OTHER-SE>                                      89,369
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   950,964
<SALES>                                         67,570
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                76,080
<CGS>                                           39,683
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   57,623
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                               4,230
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 14,458
<INCOME-TAX>                                     5,783
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              8,675
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     22
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     8,697
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .21
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .20
        

</TABLE>
Order entered August 1 4 , 2013

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05
- 12
- 01366
- CV HELEN CLARK, Appellant

V. THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON, Appellee On Appeal from the County Court at Law No. 2

Dallas County, Texas Trial Cour t Cause No. CC
- 12
- 04514
- B



### O RDER On July 29, 2013, appellant filed an affidavit of indigence in the trial court. The Dallas County Clerk filed a contest to the affidavit. The trial court held a hearing and signed an order on August 9, 2013 denying the c ontest. Accordingly, appellant is allowed to proceed without advance payment of costs. We order John Warren, County Clerk of Dallas County, Texas, to file the clerk’s record , WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order. We order Lanetta Williams, Offici al Court Reporter for County Court at Law. No. 2 of Dallas County, Texas, to file, WITHIN THIRTY DAYS of the date of this order, either: (1) the reporter’s record; or (2) written verification that appellant has not requested the reporter’s record. We noti fy appellant that if we receive notification of no request, the appeal will be submitted without a reporter’s record

.We DIRECT the Clerk of this Court to send a copy of this order by first

- class mail to

appellant and by electronic transmission, to John Wa rren, Lanetta Williams, and counsel for appellee.
/s/ ELIZABETH LANG

- MIERS JUSTICE
Exhibit 31.2

CFO CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Thomas A. Masilla, Jr., certify that:



|1. | I have reviewed this Amendment No. 1 to Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of Westway Group, Inc.; and
|-- | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



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



|                     |  |  |  |                           
|-------------------- |  |  |  | --------------------------
|Date: April 30, 2010 |  |  |  | /s/ Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.
|                     |  |  |  | Thomas A. Masilla, Jr.    
|                     |  |  |  | Chief Financial Officer
Exhibit 99.1


                            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  Quarterly  Report  of  Pennsylvania  Electric  Company
("Company")  on Form 10-Q/A for the period  ending  March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"),  I, H.
Peter Burg,  Chief  Executive  Officer of the Company,  certify,  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.



                                           /s/H. Peter Burg
                                         ----------------------
                                              H. Peter Burg
                                         Chief Executive Officer
                                            November 26, 2002

                                       97

<PAGE>


                                                                    Exhibit 99.2


                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In  connection  with the  Quarterly  Report  of  Pennsylvania  Electric  Company
("Company")  on Form 10-Q/A for the period  ending  March 31, 2002 as filed with
the Securities  and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  I,
Richard H.  Marsh,  Senior Vice  President  and Chief  Financial  Officer of the
Company,  certify,  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.



                                          /s/Richard H. Marsh
                                        ---------------------------
                                             Richard H. Marsh
                                         Senior Vice President and
                                          Chief Financial Officer
                                            November 26, 2002

                                       98
Document Headings

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

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Department of Agriculture

###### Forest Service 

# AGENCY:

Forest Service, USDA. 

# ACTION:

Withdrawal of Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement. 

# SUMMARY:

                        The USDA Forest Service is withdrawing the Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for the Dry Fork                               ( print page 52262)                            Vegetative Restoration project on the Belt Creek Ranger District of the Lewis and Clark National Forest. A Notice of Intent to prepare a Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement was published in the                         **Federal Register**                         on October 27, 2005 (pages 60274-60275).                     

Dated: August 27, 2008. 

Lesley W. Thompson, 

Forest Supervisor.

[FR Doc. E8-20746 Filed 9-8-08; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410-11-M