alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 126 (Thursday, July 2, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 31749]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-15659]


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

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Bureau of Land Management

[WY-923-1310-FI; WYW157400]


Wyoming: Notice of Proposed Reinstatement of Terminated Oil and 
Gas Lease

AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.

ACTION: Notice of proposed reinstatement of terminated oil and gas 
lease.

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

SUMMARY: Under the provisions of 30 U.S.C. 188(d) and (e), and 43 CFR 
3108.2-3(a) and (b)(2), the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) received a 
petition for reinstatement from Bestoso Oil and Gas Company for 
Noncompetitive oil and gas lease WYW157400 for land in Fremont County, 
Wyoming. The petition was filed on time and was accompanied by all the 
rentals due since the date the lease terminated under the law.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bureau of Land Management, Julie L. 
Weaver, Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication, at (307) 775-
6176.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The lessee has agreed to the amended lease 
terms for rentals and royalties at rates of $5.00 per acre, or fraction 
thereof, per year, and 16\2/3\ percent, respectively. The lessee has 
paid the required $500 administrative fee and $163 to reimburse the 
Department for the cost of this Federal Register notice. The lessee has 
met all the requirements for reinstatement of the lease as set out in 
Sections 31(d) and (e) of the Mineral Lands Leasing Act of 1920 (30 
U.S.C. 188), and the Bureau of Land Management is proposing to 
reinstate lease WYW157400 effective September 1, 2008, under the 
original terms and conditions of the lease and the increased rental and 
royalty rates cited above. BLM has not issued a valid lease affecting 
the lands.

Julie L. Weaver,
Chief, Branch of Fluid Minerals Adjudication.
[FR Doc. E9-15659 Filed 7-1-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-22-P
ELECTRONIC RECORD

COA # 03-12-00787-CR OFFENSE: 21.1

Mark Vernon Moore v. The State

STYLE: ofTexas COUNTY: Hays

VM -/s

COA DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED TRIAL COURT: 22nd District Court

DATE: 3/20/15 Publish: NO TCCASE#: CR-11-0929

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

Mark Vernon Moore v. The State of

STYLE: Texas

APPELLANT^ Petition

FOR DISCRETIONARY REVIEW IN CCA IS:

DATE: 06^/^T

JUDGE: '/^t, CCtAM^^

CCA#: *»/4-/r

CCA Disposition:

DATE:

JUDGE:

SIGNED:

PUBLISH:

REHEARING IN CCA IS:

JUDGE:

PC:_

DNP:

MOTION FOR

ELECTRONIC RECORD
<PAGE>   1
                                                                      Exhibit 23


               Consent of Ernst & Young LLP, Independent Auditors





We consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration Statements
(Form S-8 No. 33-80584 and Post-Effective Amendment No. 2 to Form S-8 No.
33-22875) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1987 Employee Stock
Option Plan, (Form S-8 No. 33-80586) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant
Corporation 1989 Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors,
(Form S-8 No.33-80664) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1993
Non-Qualified Stock Option Plan for Non-Employee Directors, (Form S-8 
No.333-23101) pertaining to the Uno Restaurant Corporation 1997 Employee 
Stock Option Plan, and (Form S-8 No.333-23103) pertaining to the Uno 
Restaurant Corporation Restricted Stock Program of our report dated November 4,
1997, with respect to the consolidated financial statements of the Uno
Restaurant Corporation included in the Annual Report (Form 10-K) for the year
ended September 28, 1997.


/s/ Ernst & Young LLP


Boston, Massachusetts
December 19, 1997
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
  1.
    
    The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and2.
    
    The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the
financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of the dates and for the
periods expressed in the Report.
 Date: November 12, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Leonard C. PurkisLeonard C. PurkisChief Financial Officer
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Luciano Incardona, Appellant.

[851 NYS2d 885]

We have reviewed the record and agree with the defendant’s assigned counsel that there are no nonfrivolous issues which could be raised on appeal. Counsel’s application for leave to withdraw as counsel is granted *(see Anders v California,*386 US 738 [1967]; *People v Paige,*54 AD2d 631 [1976]; *cf. People v Gonzalez,*47 NY2d 606 [1979]). Rivera, J.P., Lifson, Miller, Garni and Eng, JJ., concur.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<PAGE>

<ARTICLE> 5

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   YEAR
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                         DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                            JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                              DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                      4,979,400
<SECURITIES>                                3,948,400
<RECEIVABLES>                                 379,000
<ALLOWANCES>                                        0
<INVENTORY>                                         0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                            9,306,800
<PP&E>                                     81,751,200
<DEPRECIATION>                             21,860,700
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                             70,105,700
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                       1,672,000
<BONDS>                                    57,208,100
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                               0
<PREFERRED>                                         0
<COMMON>                                            0
<OTHER-SE>                                 11,026,600
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>               70,105,700
<SALES>                                             0
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                           13,443,300
<CGS>                                               0
<TOTAL-COSTS>                               5,535,500
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                              188,200
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                    0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                          4,520,000
<INCOME-PRETAX>                             1,039,700
<INCOME-TAX>                                        0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                         1,039,700
<DISCONTINUED>                                      0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                     0
<CHANGES>                                           0
<NET-INCOME>                                1,039,700
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    1.08
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    1.08


</TABLE>
#### Town of Patterson, Plaintiff, v Kenneth Hauser et al., Defendants and Third-Party Plaintiffs-Respondents. Reilly Construction, Inc., Third-Party Defendant-Appellant, et al., Third-Party Defendant.

[822 NYS2d 609]

In an action, inter alia, to restrain the defendants from diverting surface water onto a town road, and a related third-party action to recover damages for breach of contract, the third-party defendant appeals from so much of an order of the Supreme Court, Putnam County (O’Rourke, J.), dated May 17, *7882005, as denied that branch of its motion which was pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) to dismiss so much of the first cause of action of the third-party complaint as alleged that it “breached its contract with HAUSER in failing or neglecting to build, construct and provide to HAUSER a residence which was free from accumulation of ground and surface waters and which provided a means by which HAUSER could legally pump from his basement and its general locations such accumulating waters.”

Ordered that the order is affirmed insofar as appealed from, with costs.

We agree with the Supreme Court that, under the circumstances of this case, the release prepared by the appellant is ambiguous. The ambiguities contained therein cannot be resolved in the appellant’s favor as a matter of law *(see Frost v Budget Car & Truck Rental,*15 AD3d 963 [2005]; *Mejia v Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust,*304 AD2d 627 [2003]). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the subject branch of the appellant’s motion. Miller, J.E, Goldstein, Mastro and Dillon, JJ., concur.
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-1439

___________________________

Anthony Rizzuti

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Linda Sanders, Warden; Eric Banta, Supervisory Correctional Systems Specialist;

Paul M. Laird, Regional Director; Harrell Watts, Administrator

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Missouri - Springfield

____________

 Submitted: July 22, 2015

Filed: July 27, 2015

[Unpublished]

____________

Before SHEPHERD, BYE, and KELLY, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.
Federal inmate Anthony Rizzuti appeals the district court’s adverse grant of 1

summary judgment in his action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed.

Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). Upon careful review of the record and the

parties’ arguments on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s summary judgment

decision was proper, see Cody v. Weber, 256 F.3d 764, 767 (8th Cir. 2001) (de novo

standard ofreview); see also Thomas v. Corwin, 483 F.3d 516, 526-27 (8thCir. 2007)

(mere allegations, unsupported by specific facts or evidence beyond nonmoving

party’s conclusions, are insufficient to withstand summary judgment motion), and we

further conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in handling

discovery matters, see In re Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 105 F.3d 434, 435 (8th Cir.

1997) (management of discovery is committed to sound discretion of trial court;

scope of review of discovery orders is both narrow and deferential).

Accordingly, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

The Honorable M. Douglas Harpool, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Missouri.

-2-
<Page>
                                                                    EXHIBIT 23.1

                       CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in the Registration
Statements on Form S-3 (No. 333-20915) and Form S-8 (Nos. 333-20961, 333-34987,
333-66227, 333-40298 and 333-100482) of Abington Bancorp, Inc. of our report
dated May 14, 2003 relating to the financial statements as of December 31, 2002
and 2001, which appears in this Form 10-K.

/s/ PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP

Boston, Massachusetts
May 14, 2003
Reporting Instructions for Creditable Sickness Payments

Chapter 3: Sick Pay Reporting Forms

1

Reporting Sick Pay

Form BA-3, Annual Report of Creditable Compensation is used to report sick pay compensation. 

It is due by the last day of February following the year in which the sick pay compensation was 

paid.

Form BA-4, Report of Creditable Compensation Adjustments is used to adjust sick pay 

compensation previously submitted that is incorrect on the employee's records. Adjustment reports 

of sick pay may be submitted any time throughout the year but are due no later than the last day 

of February following the year in which the adjustment occurred.

Form G-440, Report Specifications Sheet, must accompany each of these reporting forms. Form 

G-440 is used for the following purposes:

• To verify receipt of the report:

• To identify the type of report that has been filed; 

• To certify that the data furnished is correct.

Information on all RRB employer reporting forms can be found in Part V of the Reporting 

Instructions for Rail Employers and the Reporting Instructions for Labor Employers. The 

instructions for completion of the forms are included on the forms themselves. When using disks 

or CD-Rom for reporting, data files must be in ASCII text character format. The format 

instructions for using automated media are in the Appendix I for each type of report you file.

Sick Pay Adjustments 

A sick pay adjustment will either increase or decrease a previous year's sick pay compensation 

according to the code in the appropriate item/tape position.

When the code is... The compensation is...

4 Added for the year shown

M Subtracted from the compensation previously reported in the year.

A decrease adjustment report should be submitted when an overstated Tier I creditable sick pay 

compensation amount was previously reported.

A decrease adjustment will not be processed if the BA number on the adjustment report does not 

agree with the BA number on the original report, or if the adjustment results in a negative amount. 

Such adjustments will be referred to the employer for corrective action.

Examples: The following examples are illustrations of Sick Pay adjustments.

Example A: An employee received $4,250 sick pay compensation in 2011 and this amount was 

reported on Form BA-3 in February 2012. In November 2012, the sick pay was recovered from a 

settlement of a personal injury claim. When the recovery was made, a Form BA-4 was filed with 

a decrease adjustment in the amount of $4,250.
Reporting Instructions for Creditable Sickness Payments

Chapter 3: Sick Pay Reporting Forms

2

Example B: An employee received $7,400 sick pay compensation in 2011. The Form BA-3 

erroneously showed the sick pay as $4,700. When the employee received their 2012 Form BA-6, 

Certificate of Service Months and Compensation, they requested that the error be corrected. To 

correct the error, the employer filed a Form BA-4 increase adjustment for 2011 of $2,700.
Exhibit 31.1**CERTIFICATION**I, Jerome B. Eisenberg, certify that: 1. I have reviewed this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of ORBCOMM Inc.;  2. Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a materialfact or omit to state a material fact necessary to make the statements made, in light ofthe circumstances under which such statements were made, not misleading with respect to theperiod covered by this report;  3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, and other financial informationincluded 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 periodspresented in this report;  4. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I are responsible for establishing andmaintaining 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 controlsand procedures to be designed under our supervision, to ensure that material informationrelating to the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report isbeing prepared;(b) Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and proceduresand 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 onsuch evaluation; and(c) Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarterthat has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, theregistrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and 5. The registrant’s other certifying officer and I have disclosed, based on our mostrecent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’sauditors and the audit committee of the registrant’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 adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financialinformation; and(b) Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees whohave a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.Date: December 14, 2006               /s/ Jerome B. Eisenberg   Name:  Jerome B. Eisenberg   Title:  Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer
Exhibit 31.02

                                 CERTIFICATION

I, Debi B. Halbert, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this report on Form 10-K/A of ProFutures Diversified Fund,
L.P.;

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 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 we 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.

5. The registrant's other certifying officer 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 the 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
      control over financial reporting.



Date:  April 26, 2007



/s/ Debi B. Halbert

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

Debi B. Halbert, Chief Financial Officer
ProFutures, Inc., General Partner
NUMBER 13-15-00136-CR

COURT OF APPEALS

THIRTEENTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

CORPUS CHRISTI – EDINBURG

EX PARTE ROSA MARIA CRUCES

On appeal from the 197th District Court

of Cameron County, Texas.

ORDER

Before Justices Rodriguez, Garza, and Longoria

Order Per Curiam

On October 15, 2014, appellant Rosa Maria Cruces filed her application for writ of 

habeas corpus in trial court cause number 2010-CR-2257-C. Following an evidentiary 

hearing, the trial court denied Cruces’s application. Cruces filed her notice of appeal from 

the denial of her application. The trial court’s certification of the defendant’s right to 

appeal, however, showed that this “is a plea bargain case, and the Defendant has NO 

right of appeal.” See TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(a)(2).
2

The Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure provide that we must dismiss an appeal 

if a certification showing that a defendant has a right of appeal is not made a part of the 

record. TEX. R. APP. P. 25.2(d); see TEX. R. APP. P. 37.1, 44.3, 44.4.2. Therefore, on 

April 15, 2015, we ordered Cruces’s appellate counsel to review the record to determine 

whether Cruces has a right to appeal and to file a motion with this Court identifying and 

explaining reasons why Cruces has a right to appeal, if it is so determined. See TEX. R.

APP. P. 44.3, 44.4; see also TEX. R. APP. P. 10.1, 10.2. On June 22, 2015, in response to 

our April 15 order, Cruces’s appellate counsel filed a document titled “Certification of Right 

of Appeal.”

The Court now requests that the State of Texas, acting by and through the District 

Attorney of Cameron County, file a response on or before the expiration of ten days from 

the date of this order. The response should state whether the trial court’s certification of 

Cruces’s right to appeal the denial of her application for writ of habeas corpus is correct 

or incorrect. The State should identify and explain reasons establishing its position, 

reasons supported by authority and the record. If the State determines there is no reason 

why Cruces does not have a right to appeal, the response should advise this Court as to 

the existence of any amended certification.

PER CURIAM 

Do not publish. 

TEX. R. APP. P. 47.2(b). 

Delivered and filed the

16th day of July, 2015.
**Exhibit32.2**

** **

**CERTIFICATIONBY CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER**

**PURSUANTTO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**

**ASADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

**SECTION 906OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

In connection with thequarterly report on Form 10-Q of Pinnacle Gas Resources, Inc. (the “Company”)for the period ending June 30, 2009, as filed with the Securities andExchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, Ronald T. Barnes,Senior Vice President, Chief Financial Officer and Secretary of the Company,hereby certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to § 906 ofthe Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

 

(1)                                  The Report fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934; and

 

(2)                                  The information contained in the Reportfairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and resultsof operations of the Company.

 

Date:  August 19,2009

 
|   | /s/ Ronald T. Barnes                    |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|
|   | Ronald T. Barnes                        |
|   | Senior Vice President,  Chief Financial |
|   | Officer and Secretary                   |

 

----