alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 190 (Friday, October 1, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 60864-60865]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24630]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

United States Mint


Senior Executive Service Combined Performance Review Board (PRB)

AGENCY: United States Mint, Department of the Treasury.

ACTION: Notice.

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

SUMMARY: Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4), this notice announces the 
appointment of members of the Combined Performance Review Board (PRB) 
for the Bureau of Engraving and Printing (BEP), Financial Management 
Service (FMS), Bureau of the Public Debt (BPD), United States Mint 
(USM), Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau (TTB) and Financial 
Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN). The Board reviews the performance 
appraisals of career senior executives below the level of bureau head 
and principal deputy in the bureaus, except for executives below the 
Assistant Commissioner/Executive Director level in the Financial 
Management Service and Bureau of the Public Debt. The Board makes 
recommendations regarding proposed performance appraisals, ratings, 
bonuses, pay adjustments and other appropriate personnel actions.
    Composition of Combined PRB: The Board shall consist of at least 
three voting members. In the case of an appraisal of a career 
appointee, more than half of the members shall consist of career 
appointees. The names and titles of the Combined PRB members are as 
follows:

Primary Members

Wanda Rogers, Deputy Commissioner, FMS.
Anita Shandor, Deputy Commissioner, BPD.
Pamela J. Gardiner, Deputy Director, BEP.
Andrew D. Brunhart, Deputy Director, USM.
Mary G. Ryan, Deputy Administrator, TTB.
Charles M. Steele, Deputy Director, FINCEN.

[[Page 60865]]

Alternate Members

John Kopec, Assistant Commissioner, Business Architecture, FMS.
Lori Santamorena, Executive Director, Government Securities Regulations 
Staff, BPD.
Scott Wilson, Associate Director, Management, BEP.
Marty Greiner, Chief Financial Officer, USM.
John Manfreda, Administrator, TTB.
Diane K. Wade, Associate Director, Management Programs Division, 
FINCEN.

DATES: Membership is effective on 09/30/2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrew D. Brunhart, Deputy Director, 
United States Mint; 801 9th Street, NW.; Washington, DC 20220; or call 
202-354-7200.

    Authority: 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4).

    Dated: September 27, 2010.
Andrew D. Brunhart,
Deputy Director, United States Mint.
[FR Doc. 2010-24630 Filed 9-30-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
CERTIFICATIONS

We, Julin Mao, Chief Executive Officer and Dexter Fong, Chief Financial Officer of Pacific Systems Control Technology, Inc., certify that:

1. We have reviewed this annual report on Form 10-KSB/A of Pacific Systems Control Technology, Inc.;

2. Based on our knowledge, this annual 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
annual report;

3. Based on our knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial
information included in this annual 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 annual report;

4. The registrant's other certifying Officers and we are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-14 and 15d-14) for the registrant and we 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 us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this
annual 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
annual report (the "Evaluation Date"); and

c) presented in this annual report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosure controls and procedures based on our evaluation as pf the Evaluation Date;

5. The registrant's other certifying officers and we have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation, to the registrant's auditors and the audit committee of registrant's board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent function);

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; and

6. The registrant's other certifying officers and we have indicated in this
annual 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 our most recent evaluation, including any corrective actions with regard to significant deficiencies and material weaknesses.

Date: April 16, 2003

/s/ Julin Mao
Julin Mao
Chief Executive Officer

/s/ Dexter Fong
Dexter Fong
Chief Financial Officer
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 22 (Wednesday, February 3, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 5634]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-2450]


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

POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION


Sunshine Act Meetings

FEDERAL REGISTER CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT: 75 FR 4429 (January 
27, 2010).

PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE: Wednesday, February 3, 2010 at 11 
a.m.

CHANGES IN THE MEETING: The Commission is adding item no. 13-discussion 
of confidential commercial information relative to a potential 
Commission contract (closed) to its February meeting agenda. This 
action is being taken pursuant to a determination of the Commission, by 
recorded vote, as to the need for the change in the agenda, the status 
of the new agenda item, and the inability to provide earlier notice. 
There is a related General Counsel certification as to the 
appropriateness of closing agenda item no. 13 to public observation.

CONTACT PERSON FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Stephen L. Sharfman, General 
Counsel, Postal Regulatory Commission, at 202-789-6820 or 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#1b686f7e6b737e753568737a697d767a755b6b6978357c746d"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="5c2f28392c343932722f343d2e3a313d321c2c2e3f723b332a">[email protected]</span></a>.

    Dated: February 1, 2010.
Shoshana M. Grove,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-2450 Filed 2-1-E8; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 7710-FW-S


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Gordon P. STREET and Gordon Street, Inc., Petitioners, v. FEDERAL POWER COMMISSION, Respondent.

No. 15274.

United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

Argued March 2, 1960.

Decided April 8, 1960.

Mr. Bryce Rea, Jr., Washington, D. C., for petitioners. Messrs. Donald E. Cross and Gordon A. Phillips, Washington, D. C., also entered appearances for petitioners.

*358Mr. Howard E. Wahrenbrock, Sol., Federal Power Commission, with whom Messrs. Willard W. Gatchell, Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, W. Russell Gorman, Asst. Gen. Counsel, Federal Power Commission, and David J. Bardin, Atty., Federal Power Commission, were on the brief, for respondent.

Before Mr. Justice Burton, retired,* and Edgerton and Danaher, Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by designation pursuant to § 294(a), Title 28 U.S.C.

PER CURIAM.

Petitioners bring for review certain rate orders of the Federal Power Commission. Section 19(b) of the Natural Gas Act provides that “No objection to the order of the Commission shall be considered by the court unless such objection shall have been urged before the Commission in [an]- application for rehearing unless there is reasonable ground for failure so to do.” 15 U.S.C.A. § 717r(b). In an application for rehearing, petitioners urged that the orders would subject petitioners to severe economic hardship and would give El Paso Natural Gas Company a “windfall”. This was an appeal to the Commission’s discretion. Petitioners did not contend, before the Commission, that it would be abusing its discretion or acting illegally if it denied relief.

But petitioners now urge that (1) the Commission “acted capriciously and arbitrarily and hence illegally by allowing Petitioners’ rate changes to become effective on the date of their filing while refusing to allow them to become effective on the dates provided in Petitioners’ contracts with El Paso Natural Gas Company”, and (2) the Commission “was legally bound and erroneously refused to vindicate Petitioners’ legal, equitable and contractual rights to recover the value of gas sold and delivered by them to El Paso Natural Gas Company.” Since these objections were not urged before the Commission in an application for rehearing, and petitioners have not shown “reasonable ground for failure” to urge them before the Commission, we cannot consider them. The petition for review must therefore be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. Federal Power Commission v. Colorado Interstate Gas Co., 348 U.S. 492, 497-500, 75 S.Ct. 467, 99 L.Ed. 583; Dayton Power & Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 164, 251 F.2d 875.

Dismissed.
#### Tex. & St. Louis R’y Co. v. B. E. Melear.

(No. 1834.)

Appeal from Navarro County.

Opinion by

Will-SON, J.

§ 457. *Pleading in county court on appeal from justice's court; a cause of action not pleaded in justice's court cannot be pleaded in county court.*Appellee brought this suit in justice’s court against appellant, upon an account. The account contained four items, which were erroneously added up, making the sum total $366.70. A credit of $252.20 was entered upon the account, and a balance shown of $114.50 in favor of appellee. A correct addition of the four items of the account *403shows the sum total thereof to be only $201.10, and subtracting this amount from the credit admitted, leaves a balance of $51.10 due thereon to appellant. This error in the account does not appear to have been detected in justice’s court, because judgment was there rendered in favor of appellee for the balance erroneously shown by the figures of said account. The case being appealed to the county court by appellant, appellee filed an amended account, which contained an additional item, which was not embraced in the original account, said item amounting to the sum of $165.60, making the balance which appellee claimed to be due him $114.50, as erroneously shown in the original account. Appellant moved to strike out this amended account, because it set up a new cause of action as to said additional item, which was not sued upon in the justice’s court. This motion was overruled, and judgment entered for appellee for said balance of account. *Held*error. The said additional item in the amended account constituted a new cause of action, which had not been sued upon in the justice’s court. In the county court, on an appeal from justice’s court, neither pai'ty will be permitted to plead causes of action, or defenses, which were not pleaded in the justice’s court.

November 26, 1884.

Reversed and remanded.
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 188 (Wednesday, September 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 60159]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-24418]


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

DEPARTMENT OF STATE

[Public Notice 7189]


Determination Concerning the Bolivian Military and Police Under 
the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and Related Programs 
Appropriations Act, 2010

    Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of State, 
including under the heading ``International Narcotics Control and Law 
Enforcement'' of the Department of State, Foreign Operations, and 
Related Programs Appropriations Act, 2010 (Div. F, Pub. L. 111-117), I 
hereby determine that the Government of Bolivia is investigating, 
prosecuting, and punishing military and police personnel who have been 
credibly alleged to have violated internationally recognized human 
rights.
    This Determination shall be transmitted to the Congress and 
published in the Federal Register.

    Dated: September 17, 2010.
Hillary Rodham Clinton,
Secretary of State.
[FR Doc. 2010-24418 Filed 9-28-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-29-P
#### John M. Reynolds v. John M. Schaffer.

*Husband and wife*— Competency *as witness.*

In a suit by a husband for carnally debauching and knowing his wife, and alienating and destroying her affection for him, the wife is not a competent witness in his behalf; citing *Mathews v. Yerex, 48*Mich. 361.

Error to Gladwin. (Gobb, J.)

Submitted on briefs April *22, 1892.*

Decided May 6, 1892.

Case. Plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

The facts are stated in the opinion.

*James Van Kleeck,*for appellant.

*F. L. Prindie (Cahill & Ostrander,*of counsel), for defendant.

*495Morse, C. J.

Plaintiff sued defendant for carnally debauching and knowing plaintiff's wife, Rhoda Reynolds, and alienating and destroying her affection for her husband. On the trial plaintiff offered his wife as a witness in his behalf. Upon • objection by defendant's counsel, the court below held that she was not a competent witness. The plaintiff also offered in evidence a-letter written to him by his said wife, previous to the wrongful acts of the’ defendant, to show the relation that,-/then existed between plaintiff and wife. This offer was rejected. No further evidence was offered by plaintiff, and the court directed a verdict for the defendant.

The direction was right. The case is ruled by *Mathews v.*Yerex, 48 Mich. 361, where it is held that the wife is not a competent witness for her husband in a suit of this kind. See, also, How. Stat. § 7546.

It is not necessary to determine whether the letter was admissible. It could have no force in the case, standing alone, without any proof of the criminal conversation.

The judgment is affirmed, with costs.

Long, Grant, and Montgomery, JJ., concurred. McGrath, J., took no part in the decision.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 9
<LEGEND>
The financial data schedule contains financial information from the
Corporation's interim consolidated financial statements contained in its
quarterly report on Form 10-Q for the period ended June 30, 1998 and is
qualified in its entirety by reference to such financial statements.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                          25,124
<INT-BEARING-DEPOSITS>                          12,650
<FED-FUNDS-SOLD>                                     0
<TRADING-ASSETS>                                 3,208
<INVESTMENTS-HELD-FOR-SALE>                     58,074
<INVESTMENTS-CARRYING>                               0
<INVESTMENTS-MARKET>                                 0
<LOANS>                                        777,149
<ALLOWANCE>                                      3,625
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 919,865
<DEPOSITS>                                     670,939
<SHORT-TERM>                                    51,905
<LIABILITIES-OTHER>                             11,621
<LONG-TERM>                                    109,738
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                            61
<OTHER-SE>                                      75,601
<TOTAL-LIABILITIES-AND-EQUITY>                 919,865
<INTEREST-LOAN>                                 31,008
<INTEREST-INVEST>                                1,971
<INTEREST-OTHER>                                   540
<INTEREST-TOTAL>                                33,519
<INTEREST-DEPOSIT>                              15,186
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,839
<INTEREST-INCOME-NET>                           13,680
<LOAN-LOSSES>                                      435
<SECURITIES-GAINS>                                (24)
<EXPENSE-OTHER>                                 10,343
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                  6,448
<INCOME-PRE-EXTRAORDINARY>                           0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     4,058
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                     0.73
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.66
<YIELD-ACTUAL>                                    3.26
<LOANS-NON>                                      3,422
<LOANS-PAST>                                        93
<LOANS-TROUBLED>                                     0
<LOANS-PROBLEM>                                      0
<ALLOWANCE-OPEN>                                 3,293
<CHARGE-OFFS>                                      185
<RECOVERIES>                                        82
<ALLOWANCE-CLOSE>                                3,625
<ALLOWANCE-DOMESTIC>                             3,134
<ALLOWANCE-FOREIGN>                                  0
<ALLOWANCE-UNALLOCATED>                            491
        

</TABLE>
#### COMPAGNIA DI NAVIGAZIONE MAURITIUS ROME, Libelant-Appellee, v. Manuel KULUKUNDIS and Intramar, S.A., Respondents-Appellees, Paragon Oil Company, Inc. and Republic Tankers, S.A., Respondents-Appellants.

No. 250, Docket 25941.

United States Court of Appeals Second Circuit.

Argued March 7,1960.

Decided March 24, 1960.

George J. Hammerman, New York City (Eli Ellis, Hill, Betts & Nash, New York City, on the brief), for respondents-appellants.

Allan A. Baillie, New York City (John H. Thoerner and Nelson, Healy, Baillie & Burke, New York City, on the brief), for libelant-appellee.

*162Sheldon A. Vogel, New York City (Bigham, Englar, Jones & Houston, New York City, on the brief), for respondentsappellees.

Before LUMBARD, Chief Judge, WATERMAN and LEWIS* Circuit Judges.

*

 Sitting by Designation.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment is affirmed on the opinion of Judge Moore, 182 F.Supp. 258.
#### LIVINGSTON PARISH COUNCIL ON AGING v. Willie GRAVES, Sheriff of Livingston Parish.

No. 2012-C-0232.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

April 20, 2012.

In re Livingston Parish Council on Aging; — Plaintiff; Applying For Writ of Cer-tiorari and/or Review, Parish of Livingston, 21st Judicial District Court Div. A, No. 127,878; to the Court of Appeal, First Circuit, No. 2011 CA 0787.

Granted.
**Exhibit 31.2**
**Certification Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**
I, Alan G. Shuler, Chief Financial Officer, certify that:
1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-QSB of MakeMusic! Inc.;
2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact oromit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstancesunder which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the period covered by thisreport;
3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial information included inthis report, fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results of operationsand cash flows of the small business issuer as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;
4. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the small business issuer and have:
     (a) Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls andprocedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relating tothe small business issuer, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;
     (b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the small business issuer’s disclosure controls andprocedures and presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the disclosurecontrols and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this report based on suchevaluation; and
     (c) Disclosed in this report any change in the small business issuer’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the small business issuer’s most recent fiscal quarter(the small business issuer’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that hasmaterially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuer’sinternal control over financial reporting; and
5. The small business issuer’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the small business issuer’sauditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer’s board of directors (or personsperforming the equivalent functions):
     (a) All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation ofinternal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the smallbusiness issuer’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and
     (b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the small business issuer’s internal control over financial reporting.        Date: May 2, 2005 By:  /s/ Alan G. Shuler    Alan G. Shuler    Chief Financial Officer