alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 193 (Friday, October 3, 2008)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57621-57622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-23388]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-8724-8]


Notice of Proposed Administrative Settlement Pursuant to the 
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice; request for public comment.

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

SUMMARY: In accordance with Section 122 (i) of the Comprehensive 
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as amended 
(CERCLA), 42 U.S.C. 9622(i), notice is hereby given of a proposed 
administrative settlement concerning the Chief Supply/Greenway 
Superfund Site, near Haskell, Wagoner County, Oklahoma.
    The settlement requires the ten (10) settling parties to pay a 
total of $498,842.94 as payment of response costs to the Hazardous 
Substances Superfund plus $5,264.56 in calculated interest. The 
settlement includes a covenant not to sue pursuant to Section 107 of 
CERCLA, 42, U.S.C. 9607.
    For thirty (30) days beginning the date of publication of this 
notice, the Agency will receive written comments relating to this 
notice and will receive written comments relating to the settlement. 
The Agency will consider all comments received and may modify or 
withdraw its consent to the settlement if comments received disclose 
facts or considerations which indicate that the settlement is 
inappropriate, improper, or inadequate. The Agency's response to any 
comments received will be available for public inspection at 1445 Ross 
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on or before November 3, 2008.

ADDRESSES: The proposed settlement and additional background 
information

[[Page 57622]]

relating to the settlement are available for public inspection at 1445 
Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733. A copy of the proposed 
settlement may be obtained from Kevin Shade, 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, 
Texas 75202-2733 or by calling (214) 665-2708. Comments should 
reference the Chief Supply/Greenway Superfund Site, near Haskell, 
Wagoner County, Oklahoma, and EPA Docket Number 06-11-07, and should be 
addressed to Kevin Shade at the address listed above.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gloria Moran, 1445 Ross Avenue, 
Dallas, Texas 75202-2733 or call (214) 665-3193.

    Dated: September 29, 2008.
Richard E. Greene,
Regional Administrator, Region 6.
[FR Doc. E8-23388 Filed 10-2-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
EXHIBIT 32.1

The following certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Report pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350 and in accordance with SEC Release No. 33-8238. The certification shall not be deemed filed for purposes of
Section 18 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, nor shall it be incorporated by reference in any filing of the Company under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, whether made before or after the date hereof, regardless of any
general incorporation language in such filing.

CERTIFICATION OF

PRINCIPAL EXECUTIVE OFFICER

In connection with the accompanying Annual Report
of MSC.Software Corporation (the Company) on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2007 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), I, William J. Weyand, Chairman of
the Board and Chief Executive Officer (Principal Executive Officer) of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of my knowledge:

(1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, 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: March 7, 2008 |  | By: |  | /s/ WILLIAM J. WEYAND                            
|                    |  |     |  | WILLIAM J. WEYAND                                
|                    |  |     |  | Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
|                    |  |     |  | (Principal Executive Officer)
#### Edward Charles JENKINS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Bruce COOKE; et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 02-16254.

D.C. No. CV-99-06549-AWI.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted March 10, 2003.*

Decided March 18, 2003.

Before CANBY, O’SCANNLAIN, and T. G. NELSON, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). Accordingly, appellant's request for oral argument is denied.

MEMORANDUM **

California state prisoner Edward Charles Jenkins appeals pro se the district court’s summary judgment in favor of prison officials in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging violations of the Eighth Amendment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Barnett v. Centoni,*31 F.3d 813, 815 (9th Cir.1994) (per curiam), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins’ excessive force claim because Jenkins failed to raise a genuine issue of material fact that the force was not applied in a good faith effort *756to maintain or restore discipline and was instead used maliciously to cause him harm. *See Johnson v. Lewis,*217 F.3d 726, 733 (9th Cir.2000) (quoting *Whitley v. Albers,*475 U.S. 312, 320-21, 106 S.Ct. 1078, 89 L.Ed.2d 251 (1986)). The district court also properly granted summary judgment on Jenkins’ due process claim because Jenkins did not raise a genuine issue of material fact as to whether his confinement in administrative segregation was an atypical and significant hardship in relation to ordinary prison life. *See Sandin v. Conner,*515 U.S. 472, 483-84, 115 S.Ct. 2293, 132 L.Ed.2d 418 (1995).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jenkins’ motions to compel discovery. *See Mabe v. San Bernadino County,*237 F.3d 1101, 1112 (9th Cir.2001).

The district court did not abuse its discretion by denying Jenkins’ motion to recuse the district court judge because Jenkins failed to present adequate evidence of bias or prejudice. *See Kulas v. Flores,*255 F.3d 780, 783, 787 (9th Cir.2001).

Jenkins’ remaining contentions lack merit.

Jenkins’ motion for sanctions is denied.

AFFIRMED.

**

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          OCT-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             NOV-01-1996
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-31-1997
<CASH>                                           1,053
<SECURITIES>                                    15,253
<RECEIVABLES>                                    5,504
<ALLOWANCES>                                       150
<INVENTORY>                                      2,317
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                25,492
<PP&E>                                           5,252
<DEPRECIATION>                                   1,508
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                  40,726
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                            4,756
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           100
<OTHER-SE>                                      34,011
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                    40,726
<SALES>                                          9,020
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                28,736
<CGS>                                            3,186
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   10,493
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                 1,693
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                   0
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  7,832
<INCOME-TAX>                                     2,710
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              5,122
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     5,122
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .48
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .48
        


</TABLE>
#### NORTHWESTERN FIRE & MARINE INSURANCE COMPANY OF MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA, a Corporation, Appellant, v. Cletus I. SPOONER, Appellee.

Supreme Court of Florida. Special Division A.

Dec. 14, 1954.

PER CURIAM.

Affirmed.
A.14. Survey of Terms of Bank Lending to Farmers, Selected Quarters

Percent except as noted

USDA Farm Production Region

NE LS CB NP AP SE DL SP MN PA

Proportion of farm loans

outstanding, 2009 Q2 survey,

region share of national

total 2.6 8.7 25.7 23.1 7.9 5.3 4.5 8.3 5.4 8.5

Sample coverage, 2009 Q2

survey, sample share of total

regional loans 9.0 4.5 15.3 35.5 20.7 9.6 9.1 6.5 7.4 32.5

Avg. loan size, 2009 Q2 survey

(thousands of dollars) 27.0 43.2 47.6 73.6 49.4 62.1 69.7 35.0 51.4 79.3

Survey date Weighted average interest rate during sample week

2004: Q2 4.8 6.3 5.2 6.2 4.6 6.4 6.9 6.2 6.4 4.1

Q3 6.2 6.6 4.8 5.5 4.8 5.2 6.1 6.7 6.7 4.9

Q4 6.2 6.4 5.2 5.4 5.1 6.0 7.5 6.4 7.0 5.2

2005: Q1 6.2 7.4 6.4 6.3 5.3 6.0 7.2 7.5 7.1 6.0

Q2 6.7 7.4 5.8 6.6 6.0 6.4 7.5 7.3 7.7 6.7

Q3 7.1 7.7 6.9 6.3 6.1 7.2 7.6 7.2 8.2 6.8

Q4 6.8 7.7 6.8 7.3 6.6 7.4 8.0 8.1 8.2 7.5

2006: Q1 7.9 8.0 7.4 7.8 7.3 7.8 8.0 8.7 8.5 7.8

Q2 8.4 8.3 7.7 7.9 7.6 8.3 8.6 8.8 9.1 7.8

Q3 8.2 8.7 8.3 8.2 7.6 8.8 8.8 9.2 9.5 9.0

Q4 9.2 8.6 7.4 8.1 8.1 8.2 8.8 8.9 9.1 8.9

2007: Q1 8.4 8.6 8.4 8.3 7.8 8.4 8.5 8.9 9.3 8.9

Q2 8.1 8.6 8.1 8.4 7.7 8.6 8.6 9.1 9.4 8.6

Q3 10.4 8.6 8.1 8.1 8.3 8.5 8.9 8.9 9.5 8.6

(0.01) (0.42) (0.15) (0.35) (0.33) (0.44) (0.26) (0.17) (0.07) (0.30)

Q4 7.4 8.6 7.5 7.3 6.8 8.1 8.6 8.6 8.9 7.6

(0.01) (0.16) (0.25) (0.55) (0.47) (0.41) (0.17) (0.23) (0.15) (0.22)

2008: Q1 7.3 7.8 6.4 6.3 6.2 6.4 7.8 7.2 7.8 6.3

(0.14) (0.28) (0.14) (0.63) (0.66) (0.67) (0.72) (0.21) (0.23) (0.10)

Q2 7.4 6.6 5.6 5.4 5.5 5.7 6.9 6.4 6.3 5.1

(0.30) (0.09) (0.26) (0.89) (0.49) (0.29) (0.40) (0.30) (0.34) (0.25)

Q3 5.7 7.2 5.7 5.4 5.5 5.0 7.2 6.1 6.5 5.0

(0.93) (0.19) (0.31) (1.25) (0.37) (0.72) (0.20) (0.24) (0.36) (0.36)

Q4 7.5 6.6 5.4 4.6 5.1 4.5 7.6 6.1 5.6 4.4

(0.07) (0.10) (0.52) (1.05) (0.67) (0.04) (0.72) (0.38) (0.61) (0.09)

2009: Q1 4.2 6.4 5.3 4.6 4.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.7 3.9

(0.34) (0.35) (0.35) (1.22) (0.95) (0.93) (0.64) (0.67) (0.32) (0.65)

Q2 4.2 6.4 4.9 4.6 3.7 4.8 6.5 5.7 5.8 4.2

(0.35) (0.16) (0.38) (1.20) (1.07) (0.19) (0.40) (0.36) (0.55) (0.25)

Notes. NE is Northeast, LS is Lake States, CB is Cornbelt, NP is Northern Plains, AP is Appalachia, SE is Southeast, DL is

Delta States, SP is Southern Plains, MN is Mountain States, and PA is Pacific. The numbers in parentheses are standard errors.

They are calculated from 100 replications of a bootstrap procedure (resampling of banks) in each region.

19
IN THE UNITED STATED DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland

Civil Action No. 11-cv-02285-MSK-BNB

CENTER FOR LEGAL ADVOCACY, 

d/b/a The Legal Center for People With Disabilities and Older People,

Plaintiff,

v.

REGGIE BICHA, in his official capacity as Executive Director of the Colorado Department of

Human Services, and

TERESA A. BERNALL, in her official capacity as Interim Superintendent of the Colorado

Mental Health Institute at Pueblo,

Defendants.

______________________________________________________________________________

ORDER

______________________________________________________________________________

Pursuant to the order of the district judge [Doc. # 25, dated 11/21/2011],

IT IS ORDERED that a settlement conference will be held on December 7, 2011, at

10:00 a.m., in Courtroom 401, 4th floor, Alfred A. Arraj United States Courthouse, 901 19th

Street, Denver, Colorado. All settlement conferences that take place before the magistrate judge

shall be confidential. Pro se parties, attorneys, and client representatives with full authority to

settle the case must be present at the settlement conference in person. (NOTE: This requirement

is not fulfilled by the presence of counsel alone. If an insurance company is involved, an

adjustor authorized to enter into settlement must also be present.)

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall engage in pre-conference settlement

discussions to assure that the settlement conference is not futile, and shall notify the court of

their conclusion by means of a joint status report filed on or before December 1, 2011. 

Case 1:11-cv-02285-MSK-BNB Document 26 Filed 11/22/11 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 2
2

Dated November 22, 2011.

BY THE COURT:

 s/ Boyd N. Boland 

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 1:11-cv-02285-MSK-BNB Document 26 Filed 11/22/11 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 2
**Exhibit 13**

 

**SECTION 906 CERTIFICATIONS**

 

**Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350**

 

 

I, Brian Charles Hartzer, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2017 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “issuer”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | Date:  6 November 2017 |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   | /s/ Brian Charles Hartzer        |
|   | Brian Charles Hartzer            |
|   | Managing Director and            |
|   | Chief Executive Officer          |

 

 

 

I, Peter Francis King, certify that the Annual Report on Form 20-F for the year ended 30 September 2017 of Westpac Banking Corporation (the “issuer”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and that the information contained in the report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the issuer.

 

 
|   | Date:  6 November 2017 |
|--------|----------------------------------|
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   |                             |
|   | /s/ Peter Francis King           |
|   | Peter Francis King               |
|   | Chief Financial Officer          |

 

----
FIL ED U.S. COURT OF APPEAL S EL EVENTHCI RCUI T MAR 20, 2009 THOMAS K. KAH

N CL ERK [PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ No. 0 7- 10 52 1

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ D.C. Dock etNo. 0 6- 00 08 4- CV-J -3 2- MCR JAC KSON-SHAWCOMPANY, a Tex as co rp or at io n, Pl ai nt iff –Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us JAC KSONVILLE AV IATION AUTHO RITY, a b od y po li ti c an d c or

po rat e, Defen dant–Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e Mi dd le Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Ma rch 2 0, 2 00 9) Befo re BI RCH an d B ARKETT, Circu itJu dg es , andKORMAN, Dis tri ctJu dg e. *

Honora ble Edwa rd Korma n, United States District J udg e for the Easter

n District of Ne w * York, sitting by

designation.PER CURI AM:

Ja ck so n- Sh aw Co m

pa ny app eal edfro m

a fi na l ju dg m en t, af

te r a b en chtri al , in fav orof t he Jac ks on vi ll e Avi at io n Au th or ity (“ JAA”) onJac ks on -Sh aw’s su it
se ek in g ade cl arat ory

jud gm en t an d i nju nc ti ve rel ie f. In i ts Co m pl ai nt , Jac ks on Sh aw al le ge d tha t a d ev el op m en t ag reem en t (“ Agr eem en t” ) be twee n the JAA an d a p riv at e en ti ty, Majes ti c Rea lty Co m pa ny (“ Majes ti c”), vi ol at edart ic le VII, 1
se ct io n 1 0 o f th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on . Spe ci fic al ly, Ja ck so n- Sh aw al le ge d t ha t the Agr eem en t m ad e th e JAA a “ joi ntown er” wi th Majes ti c an d re qu ire d t he JAA to pl ed ge to Majes ti c it s p ub li c cre di t, b ot h o f whi chare p ro hi bi te d b y art ic le VII,
se ct io n 1 0 o f th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on . W e certi fie d t o t he Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt 2 th e que st io ns of wh ethe r th e p ro vi si on s o f th e Agr eem en t m ad e th e JAA a “ joi nt own er” o r requi reditto pl ed ge to Majes ti c it s p ub li c cre di t. The Flo rid a Supr em e Co urt an swe redinth e n eg at iv e. Ja ck so n- Sh aw Co . v. J ack so nv il le Avi at io n Aut h., 2 00 8 F la . LEXIS 23 98 (Dec. 1 8, 2 00 8) . Accor di ng ly, be cau se th e Agr eem en t d idno t v io la te th e Fl or id a Co ns ti tu ti on , th e fi na l ju dg m en t o f th e
The Agree ment at issue in this case is betwe en the JAA and Woodwings Ea st 1 Deve lopment, L L C, a Dela war e limited liability

company formed by

Majestic. The F lorida Constitut ion permits us to certify a question to the F lorida Supreme Court if 2 it “is determinative of

the ca use and f or which the re is no controlling pre cede nt of the supre me court of F lorida.” F la. Const. art. V, § 3(b) (6); see also Stevens v. B attelle Memoria l Inst., 488 F.3d 896, 904 ( 11th Cir. 2007). 2di st ric t co urt i s

AFFIRMED

3
# Fourth Court of Appeals

**San Antonio, Texas**

JUDGMENT

No. 04

- 21

- 00149

- CV

Nasser NAKISSA

, Appellant

v.

Sarah E. MENCHACA

, Appellee

From the 131st Judicial District Court

, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2018

- CI

- 19593

Honorable Cathleen M. Stryker , Judge Presiding

BEFORE CHIEF JUSTICE MARTINEZ

, JUSTICE RIOS , AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the trial court’s judgment is AFFIRMED. Costs of this appeal are taxed against appellant Nasser Nakissa.

SIGNED December 21, 2022.

_____________________________ Rebeca C. Martinez, Chief Justice
#### LYONS v. RAYSON.

No. 3920.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana. Second Circuit, Second Division.

Nov. 18, 1931.

R. D. Fuller, of Shreveport, for appellant.

Lyons & Prentiss, of Shreveport, for appel-lee.

STEPHENS, J.

The plaintiff sues for damages in the sum of $2,000 for personal injury, and for the recovery of $50 expended for medical attention.

The plaintiff alleges that on August 18,1929, at about ten o’clock in the morning, he was riding in an automobile as an invited guest of Dr. Leroy H. Scott. The automobile was being driven by Dr. Scott in a westerly direction along the Shreveport-Greenwood road, on the right-hand side thereof, and at a moderate rate of speed; that an automobile owned and operated at the time by the defendant was traveling in the same direction, and attempted to pass the automobile in which plaintiff was riding, and, in doing so, swerved in front of and struck its left front wheel, causing it to swerve from the road and overturn in a ditch; that the defendant was driving in á grossly negligent manner, and at an excessive rate of speed; and that said recklessness and grossly negligent fate of speed on the part of the defendant was the proximate cause of the accident. That as a result of the accident plaintiff sustained injury to his back in the sacroiliac region, and to his head, neck, and ear; that he was confined to his bed for a period of sixty days, and, during a part of that time, was under the care of a physician.

The defendant answered denying generally the allegations of the plaintiff’s petition. The district judge rendered judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $350 for the personal injury sustained, and $50 for doctors’ bills, with legal interest on said sums from judicial demand. From the judgment rendered, defendant appeals.

From a careful reading of the evidence, we have concluded that the district court has correctly disposed of the case. The evidence supports the contention of the plaintiff that the accident was caused solely by the negligent driving of the defendant, and the damages awarded by the district judge appear to us to be conservative and to represent a fair remuneration for the injury sustained.

Defendant has made no appearance in this court, either by brief or oral argument. It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the judgment of the district court be affirmed, with costs.
**EXHIBIT 23.1**

 

REPORT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM 

 

To the Board of Directors and Stockholders of 

Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. 

Naperville, Illinois 

 

We have reviewed the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary (the“Company”) as of April 30, 2005, and the related condensed consolidated statements of operations and cash flows for the three-month periods ended April 30, 2005 and May 1, 2004. These interim financial statements are the responsibility ofthe Company’s management. 

 

We conducted our reviews in accordance withstandards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States). A review of interim financial information consists principally of applying analytical procedures and making inquiries of persons responsible for financial and accountingmatters. It is substantially less in scope than an audit conducted in accordance with the standards of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the objective of which is the expression of an opinion regarding the financialstatements taken as a whole. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion. 

 

Based on our reviews, we are not aware of any material modifications that should be made to such condensed consolidated interim financial statements for them to be in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the UnitedStates of America. 

 

We have previously audited, in accordance with standards ofthe Public Company Accounting Oversight Board (United States), the consolidated balance sheet of Factory Card & Party Outlet Corp. and subsidiary as of January 29, 2005, and the related consolidated statements of operations, stockholders’equity, and cash flows for the 52 weeks ended January 29, 2005 (not presented herein); and in our report dated April 18, 2005, we expressed an unqualified opinion on those consolidated financial statements and included an explanatory paragraphrelated to the adoption of fresh-start accounting. In our opinion, the information set forth in the accompanying condensed consolidated balance sheet as of January 29, 2005 is fairly stated, in all material respects, in relation to the consolidatedbalance sheet from which it has been derived. 

 

/s/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP

 

June 7, 2005 

 

25