alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 2 (Monday, January 5, 2015)]
[Notices]
[Page 259]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30789]


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

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Antitrust Division


Notice Pursuant to the National Cooperative Research and 
Production Act of 1993--Petroleum Environmental Research Forum

    Notice is hereby given that, on December 9, 2014, pursuant to 
section 6(a) of the National Cooperative Research and Production Act of 
1993, 15 U.S.C. 4301 et seq. (``the Act''), Petroleum Environmental 
Research Forum (``PERF'') has filed written notifications 
simultaneously with the Attorney General and the Federal Trade 
Commission disclosing changes in its membership. The notifications were 
filed for the purpose of extending the Act's provisions limiting the 
recovery of antitrust plaintiffs to actual damages under specified 
circumstances. Specifically, Qatar Petroleum, Doha, QATAR, has been 
added as a party to this venture.
    No other changes have been made in either the membership or planned 
activity of the group research project. Membership in this group 
research project remains open, and PERF intends to file additional 
written notifications disclosing all changes in membership.
    On February 10, 1986, PERF filed its original notification pursuant 
to section 6(a) of the Act. The Department of Justice published a 
notice in the Federal Register pursuant to section 6(b) of the Act on 
March 14, 1986 (51 FR 8903).
    The last notification was filed with the Department on July 8, 
2014. A notice was published in the Federal Register pursuant to 
section 6(b) of the Act on August 8, 2014 (79 FR 46451).

Patricia A. Brink,
Director of Civil Enforcement, Antitrust Division.
[FR Doc. 2014-30789 Filed 1-2-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE P
----

Exhibit 32.2 

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION1350 AS ADOPTED PURSUANTTOSECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002 

In condition with theQuarterly Report on Form 10-Q of Polydex Pharmaceuticals Limited (the "Company")for the fiscal quarter ended April 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John A. Luce, ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350 as adoptedpursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that: 

(1) the Report fully complies with therequirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;and 

(2) the information contained in theReport fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition andresult of operations of the Company. 

By /s/ John A. Luce       John A. Luce, Chief Financial Officer June 14, 2007 

A signed original of this written statementrequired by section 906 has been provided to the Company and will be retained bythe Company and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staffupon request. 

----
Abatement Order filed May 14, 2019

In The 

## Fourteenth Court of Appeals

____________ NO. 14

- 18

- 00514

- CR

____________ RUBEN NOEL ORNELAS , Appellant

V.
THE STATE OF TEXAS , Appellee

On Appeal from the 212th District Court Galveston County, Texas Tria l Court Cause No. 16

- CR

- 3172



### ABATEMENT ORDER
Appellant is represented by appointed counsel on appeal, Winston E. Cochran. On April 30, 2019 , attorney Greg Russel filed a motion to substitute as appellate counsel because appellant retained him for represe ntation . Accordingly, we enter the following order.
We ORDER the judge of the 212th District Court to consider Greg Russel’ s request to substitute . The judge shall see that a record of any hearing is made, and shall order the trial clerk to forward a re cord of the hearing and a supplemental clerk ’ s record containing any orders permitting current counsel to withdraw andallowing Greg Russel to substitute . Those records shall be filed with the clerk of

this court within 15 days of the date of this order.

T he appeal is abated, treated as a closed case, and removed from this c ourt ’ s active docket. The app eal will be reinstated on this c ourt ’ s active docket when the trial court ’ s findings and recommendations are filed in this c ourt.

PER CURIAM

Panel Consis ts of Justices Wise, Jewell, Hassan.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 2035 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 2035

   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                             March 29, 2023

Mr. Biggs (for himself, Mr. Rosendale, Mr. Gaetz, Mr. Good of Virginia, 
   Mr. Roy, and Mr. Crane) introduced the following bill; which was 
        referred to the Committee on Education and the Workforce

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
   To provide for a limitation on availability of funds for Related 
  Agencies, Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating 
                     Expenses for fiscal year 2024.

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

SECTION 1. LIMITATION ON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FOR RELATED AGENCIES, 
              CORPORATION FOR NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY SERVICE, OPERATING 
              EXPENSES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024.

    Notwithstanding any other provision of the law, amounts authorized 
to be appropriated or otherwise available for Related Agencies, 
Corporation for National and Community Service, Operating Expenses for 
fiscal year 2024 may not exceed $786,629,000.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 23 -  Consent of Experts


G. BRAD BECKSTEAD
---------------------------
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
                                                            330 E. Warm Springs
                                                            Las Vegas, NV 89119
                                                                   702.257.1984
                                                             702.362.0540 (fax)


April 1, 2002


To Whom It May Concern:

I  have  issued  my  report  dated April 1, 2002,  accompanying  the  financial
statements of ALD Services, Inc.  on  Form 10-KSB/A for the period November 10,
1998 (inception date) through December  31,  2000.   I  hereby  consent  to the
incorporation by reference of said report in the Annual Report of ALD Services,
Inc. on Form 10-KSB/A (File No. 000-27035).

Signed,

/s/ G. Brad Beckstead
-----------------------
G. Brad Beckstead, CPA



<PAGE>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Jose Soto, Appellant.

[970 NYS2d 709]

— Appeal by the defendant, as limited by his motion, from a sentence of the Supreme Court, Kings County (Guzman, J), imposed April 15, 2011, on the ground that the sentence was excessive.

Ordered that the sentence is affirmed.

The defendant’s purported waiver of his right to appeal was invalid *(see People v Lopez,*6 NY3d 248, 257 [2006]; *People v Grant,*83 AD3d 862, 862-863 [2011]; *People v Bradshaw,*76 AD3d 566, 569 [2010], *affd*18 NY3d 257, 264 [2011]; *see also People v Callahan,*80 NY2d 273, 283 [1992]) and, thus, does not preclude review of his excessive sentence claim. However, contrary to the defendant’s contention, the sentence imposed was not excessive *(see People v Suitte,*90 AD2d 80 [1982]). Eng, EJ., Dillon, Chambers and Austin, JJ., concur.
UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-7421

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff - Appellee,

v.

ISAIAH MILLER, a/k/a I,

Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of 

South Carolina, at Florence. Terry L. Wooten, Chief District 

Judge. (4:05-cr-00036-TLW-1)

Submitted: February 23, 2016 Decided: February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior 

Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Isaiah Miller, Appellant Pro Se. William Norman Nettles, United 

States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee. 

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2

PER CURIAM:

Isaiah Miller appeals the district court’s order denying 

his 18 U.S.C. § 3582(c)(2) (2012) motion for reduction of

sentence. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible 

error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the 

district court. United States v. Miller, No. 4:05-cr-00036-TLW1 (D.S.C. Aug. 20, 2015). We grant Miller leave to proceed in 

forma pauperis and deny his motions for a transcript at 

government expense and to have a verbatim transcript ordered. 

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal 

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before 

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. 

AFFIRMED
#### Raymond Hill et al., Respondents, v Lambert Houses Redevelopment Company et al., Appellants.

[963 NYS2d 651]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (John A. Barone, J.), entered August 31, 2012, which, in this action arising from plaintiff Raymond Hill’s alleged slip and fall on stairs in a building owned and/or managed by defendants, to the extent appealed from, denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint, unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Defendants’ submissions raise triable issues of fact as to whether they had constructive notice of a visible and apparent dangerous condition that existed for a sufficient length of time before the accident to permit them to discover and remedy it *(Gordon v American Museum of Natural History,*67 NY2d 836, 837 [1986]), and whether they had constructive notice of an ongoing and recurring dangerous condition existing in the area of the accident that they routinely left unaddressed *(see Bido v 876-882 Realty, LLC,*41 AD3d 311, 312 [1st Dept 2007]; *Irizarry v 15 Mosholu Four, LLC,*24 AD3d 373, 373-374 [1st Dept 2005]). Indeed, defendants’ porter averred that he followed a daily routine in which he inspected and cleaned the hallways and stairwells in the morning, that he would respond to any complaints throughout the day until the end of his shift at 5:00 p.m., and that he did not observe or receive any complaints of urine in the stairwell on the date of the accident. However, *643plaintiff and two nonparty witnesses testified that urine and other debris were nearly always present in the hallways and stairwells of the building. Further, plaintiff testified that while he did not see the urine before he slipped on it, he smelled it in the stairwell nearly two hours earlier. In addition, a nonparty tenant testified that she saw urine on the steps in the location of plaintiffs fall 15 hours before the accident and again nearly five hours before the accident, at which time the condition of the steps had worsened, as even more urine and other debris were present. She further testified that the porter rarely cleaned and did not adhere to a regular schedule, and that she and other tenants had complained to defendants about the dangerous condition of the stairwell, including a day or two before the accident, to no avail. She and another witness also testified that they had slipped on urine in the stairwell on multiple occasions.

We have considered defendants’ remaining arguments and find them unavailing.

Concur—Tom, J.E, Acosta, Román, Feinman and Clark, JJ.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          APR-03-1999
<PERIOD-START>                             JUL-04-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               OCT-02-1999
<CASH>                                          20,000
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,333,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                   221,000
<INVENTORY>                                  1,382,000
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                             3,010,000
<PP&E>                                       4,423,000
<DEPRECIATION>                               4,162,000
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               3,289,000
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,661,000
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                        2,583,000
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                     3,235,000
<OTHER-SE>                                  32,842,000
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 3,289,000
<SALES>                                      2,126,000
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             2,126,000
<CGS>                                          639,000
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,396,000
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                     0
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              19,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                              (289,000)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                          (289,000)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                 (289,000)
<EPS-BASIC>                                     (0.01)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                   (0.01)


</TABLE>
**EXHIBIT 31.3**

 

**SYMBION, INC.**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I,Richard E. Francis, Jr., certify that:

 

1.              I have reviewed this Reporton Form 10-K/A of Symbion, Inc.;

 

2.              Based on my knowledge, thisreport does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading withrespect to the period covered by this report; and

 

3.              Based on my knowledge, thefinancial statements, and other financial information included in this report,fairly present in all material respects the financial condition, results ofoperations and cash flows of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report.

 

 
|                  | /s/ Richard E. Francis, Jr. |
|-----------------------|----------------------------------|
|                  | Richard E. Francis, Jr.     |
|                  | Chief Executive Officer          |
|                  |                             |
| Date: October 5, 2010 |                             |

 

----
EXHIBIT
31.2





STATMON
TECHNOLOGIES CORP.





CERTIFICATIONS




I,
Geoffrey P. Talbot, certify that:




1.           I
have reviewed this report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended December 31, 2008
of Statmon Technologies Corp.




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;




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




4.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing
and maintaining disclosure controls and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act
Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the registrant and have:




(a)           Designed
such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and
procedures to be designed under our supervision, 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 report is being prepared;




(b)           Evaluated
the effectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and procedures and
presented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of the
disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by this
report based on such evaluation; and




(c)       
    Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant's
internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant's
most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant's fourth fiscal quarter in the case
of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to
materially affect, the registrant's internal control over financial reporting;
and




5.           The
registrant's other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most
recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, 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 and material weaknesses in the design or operation of
internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to
adversely affect the registrant'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 a significant role in the registrant's internal controls over financial
reporting.




Date:
March 23, 2009




/s/
      Geoffrey P. TalbotGeoffrey
      P. TalbotChief
      Financial Officer
PUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

RICHARD TOWNES, JR.,

Petitioner-Appellant,

v. No. 96-2

RONALD J. ANGELONE, Director,

Respondent-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk.

J. Calvitt Clarke, Jr., Senior District Judge.

(CA-96-42)

Submitted: January 23, 1996

Decided: January 23, 1996

Before NIEMEYER and LUTTIG, Circuit Judges,

and PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.

_________________________________________________________________

Affirmed by published per curiam opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

COUNSEL

Donald Robert Lee, VIRGINIA CAPITAL REPRESENTATION

RESOURCE CENTER, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellant. Robert

Quentin Harris, Assistant Attorney General, OFFICE OF THE

ATTORNEY GENERAL, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.

_________________________________________________________________
OPINION

PER CURIAM:

Richard Townes is sentenced to death and is scheduled to be executed tonight at 9:00 p.m. for his 1986 murder of Virginia Goebel.

Yesterday, January 22, 1996, Townes filed this appeal from the order

of the district court dated January 17, 1996, denying his petition for

a writ of habeas corpus, challenging a separate 1976 robbery conviction which was presented to the jury at his murder trial as evidence

of his future dangerousness. In essence, Townes' challenge to the

1976 robbery conviction amounts to a challenge to evidence presented during his murder trial, which we reviewed recently in Townes

v. Murray, 68 F.3d 840 (4th Cir. 1995), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___

(Jan. 23, 1996).

The 1976 robbery conviction which Townes challenges in this case

was entered pursuant to a guilty plea, and no direct appeal was taken.

That conviction, however, has been the subject of numerous collateral

challenges, catalogued in the magistrate judge's report and recommendation to the district court in this case, dated February 22, 1993.

Even though Townes' claims are barred by multiple defaults in both

state and federal court, the district court nevertheless reviewed their

merits and rejected all of them.

We have carefully reviewed all of the matters presented and conclude that, for the reasons given by the district court in its January 17,

1996 opinion, Townes v. Angelone, Civil Action No. 96-42-2 (E.D.

Va. Jan. 17, 1996), the points raised on appeal have no merit. Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

AFFIRMED

 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>
<ARTICLE> UT
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
STATEMENT OF OPERATIONS AND CHANGES IN MEMBER'S EQUITY, THE STATEMENT OF CASH
FLOWS, AND THE BALANCE SHEET FOR THE FORM 10-Q DATED JUNE 30, 2000, AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<CIK> 0000317187
<NAME> PPL ELECTRIC UTILITIES CORPORATION
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1999
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<BOOK-VALUE>                                  PER-BOOK
<TOTAL-NET-UTILITY-PLANT>                        4,342
<OTHER-PROPERTY-AND-INVEST>                        804
<TOTAL-CURRENT-ASSETS>                           1,282
<TOTAL-DEFERRED-CHARGES>                         2,892
<OTHER-ASSETS>                                       0
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   9,320
<COMMON>                                         1,476
<CAPITAL-SURPLUS-PAID-IN>                        (599)<F1>
<RETAINED-EARNINGS>                                569
<TOTAL-COMMON-STOCKHOLDERS-EQ>                   1,446
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               47
<PREFERRED>                                         50
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-NET>                             3,247
<SHORT-TERM-NOTES>                                 377
<LONG-TERM-NOTES-PAYABLE>                            0
<COMMERCIAL-PAPER-OBLIGATIONS>                     272
<LONG-TERM-DEBT-CURRENT-PORT>                      234
<PREFERRED-STOCK-CURRENT>                            0
<CAPITAL-LEASE-OBLIGATIONS>                          0
<LEASES-CURRENT>                                     0
<OTHER-ITEMS-CAPITAL-AND-LIAB>                   3,647
<TOT-CAPITALIZATION-AND-LIAB>                    9,320
<GROSS-OPERATING-REVENUE>                        2,133
<INCOME-TAX-EXPENSE>                               144
<OTHER-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,648
<TOTAL-OPERATING-EXPENSES>                       1,792
<OPERATING-INCOME-LOSS>                            341
<OTHER-INCOME-NET>                                  23
<INCOME-BEFORE-INTEREST-EXPEN>                     364
<TOTAL-INTEREST-EXPENSE>                           125
<NET-INCOME>                                       239
<PREFERRED-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                         13
<EARNINGS-AVAILABLE-FOR-COMM>                      226
<COMMON-STOCK-DIVIDENDS>                             0
<TOTAL-INTEREST-ON-BONDS>                            0
<CASH-FLOW-OPERATIONS>                             258
<EPS-BASIC>                                       0.00
<EPS-DILUTED>                                     0.00
<FN>
<F1>NET OF $632 MILLION OF TREASURY STOCK
</FN>


</TABLE>