alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 130 (Thursday, July 9, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 32909-32910]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16161]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Project No. 2244-022]


Energy Northwest; Notice of Availability of Final Environmental 
Assessment

July 1, 2009.
    In accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 
1969 and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's (Commission) 
regulations, 18 CFR part 380 (Order No. 486, 52 FR 47879), the Office 
of Energy Projects has reviewed the application for a new major license 
for the

[[Page 32910]]

Packwood Lake Hydroelectric Project (project), located on Lake Creek in 
Lewis County, Washington, and has prepared a final Environmental 
Assessment (EA). In the final EA, Commission staff analyze the 
potential environmental effects of licensing the project and conclude 
that issuing a license for the project, with appropriate environmental 
measures, would not constitute a major federal action significantly 
affecting the quality of the human environment.
    A copy of the final EA is on file with the Commission and is 
available for public inspection. The final EA may also be viewed on the 
Commission's Web site at http://www.ferc.gov using the ``eLibrary'' 
link. Enter the docket number excluding the last three digits in the 
docket number field to access the document. For assistance, contact 
FERC Online Support at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#dd9b988f9e92b3b1b4b3b88ea8adadb2afa99dbbb8afbef3bab2ab"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="02444750414d6c6e6b6c67517772726d707642646770612c656d74">[email protected]</span></a> or toll-free at 1-
866-208-3676, or for TTY, (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. E9-16161 Filed 7-8-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
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: July 30, 2009
    By:
    /s/ Leonard C. PurkisLeonard C. PurkisChief Financial Officer
### Michigan Supreme Court Lansing, Michigan

Marilyn Kelly,
Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanag h
Elizabeth A. Weave r

Maura D. Corriga n Robert P. Young, Jr. Stephen J. Markma n Diane M. Hathaway,
J ustices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Mi chigan Supreme Cour t, certify that the foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.

_______________________________________ __ Clerk February 4, 2009

s0128 

# Order

February 4, 2009

136675

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 136675 COA: 280015 Wayne CC: 00-002995-01 LAMONT SHREVE, Defendant-Appellant.

________________ _______________ __________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the May 5, 2008 order of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not persuaded that the question presented should be reviewed by this Court.

K ELLY



### , C.J., and C AVANAGH



### , J., would grant leave to appeal.
Fourth Court of Appeals

San Antonio, Texas

JUDGMENT

No. 04-19-00824-CV

IN THE INTEREST OF A.C.P.T., a Child

From the 37th Judicial District Court, Bexar County, Texas

Trial Court No. 2019-PA-00127

Honorable Charles E. Montemayor, Judge Presiding

BEFORE JUSTICE MARTINEZ, JUSTICE WATKINS, AND JUSTICE RODRIGUEZ

In accordance with this court’s opinion of this date, the judgment of the trial court is 

AFFIRMED. It is ORDERED that no costs be assessed against appellant in relation to this appeal.

SIGNED April 29, 2020.

_____________________________

Rebeca C. Martinez, Justice
## THEAITORNEYGIE=NERAL OF TEXAS AURTIN. TEXAS 78711
May 20, 1977

Honorable Oscar H.Mauzy Chairman Senate Education Committee Senate of the State of Texas Austin, Texas Opinion No. H-997 Re: Whether MH/MR state schools are entitled toa distribution from the Available School Fund. Dear Senator Mauzy: You have requested our opinion regarding whether state schools of the Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation are entitled to adistribution of the state available school fund. TheAvailable School Fund is created by article 7, section 5of theTexas Constitution, and the composition of the state available school fund isdescribed in section 15.01(b) of the Education Code. Inour opinion, state schools of the Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation, even though created as separate school "districts," are not eligible to receive aportion of the state available school fund. The Education Code, which provides for thedistribution of the available fund, isnot applicable to the institutions of theDepartment ofMental Health andMental Retardation:

This code shall not apply to those eleemosynary institutions under the control and direction of the Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation or to the institutions and activities of the Texas Youth Council. Education Code § 1.04(b). Although itmight **be** argued that the Education Code, by excepting from its application "the eleemosynary institutions under the control and direction Of the Department" does not thereby except the school districts of thevarious institutions, it is clear that thedistricts

p. 4135Honorable Oscar H.Mauzy -page 2 (H-997)

are creatures of the Department. Inevery case, the territorial limits of the district are coextensive with theboundaries,of the institution. Furthermore, members of the Board ofMental Health andMental Retardation serve as ex-officio trustees for each district. See, -1, V.T.C.S. arts. 2668a; 266813;2668~; 2668d; 2668e; 3263e. Since the Education Code provides for the distribution of the state available school fund, and since the Code is inapplicable to institutions under the control of the Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation, it isour opinion that the state schools of the Department are not entitled to adistribution of the state available school fund under current provisions of the Education Code. SUMMARY State schools of the Department ofMental Health andMental Retardation are not entitled to share in the distribution of the state available school fund under current provisions of the Education Code. Very truly yours,

JOHN L. HILL Attorney General of Texas APPROVED:

Opinion Committee km1

p. 4136
**EXHIBIT 32.1**

**CERTIFICATIONPURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT**

November 13, 2006

U. S. Securities and Exchange Commission450 Fifth Street, N. W.Washington, D.C. 20549

Ladies and Gentlemen:

The certification set forth below is being submittedto the Securities and Exchange Commission solely for the purpose of complyingwith Section 1350 of Chapter 63 of Title 18 of the United States Code.This certification is not to be deemed to be filed pursuant to the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and does not constitute a part of the Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q(the “Report”) accompanying this letter and is not to be incorporated byreference into any filing, whether made before or after the date hereof,regardless of any general incorporation language in such filing.

I, Robert E.Driscoll, the President and Chief Executive Officer of Mirant North America,LLC (the “Company”), certify that, to the best of my knowledge:

1.                the Report fullycomplies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of theSecurities Exchange Act of 1934; and

2.                theinformation contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,the financial condition and results of operation of Mirant North America, LLC.
| Name:  | /s/ ROBERT E.  DRISCOLL                 |   |
|--------|-----------------------------------------|--------|
|   | Robert E. Driscoll                      |
|   | *President and Chief Executive Officer* |

 

A signed original of this written statement requiredby Section 906 has been provided to Mirant North America, LLC and will beretained by Mirant North America, LLC and furnished to the Securities andExchange Commission or its staff upon request.

----
#### FRAZIER v. NEW ENGLAND NEWSPAPER PUB. CO.

No. 749.

District Court, D. Massachusetts.

April 24, 1941.

David A. Rose, of Boston, Mass., for plaintiff.

Gerald May, of Boston, Mass., for defendant.

SWEENEY, District Justice..

The defendant has questioned the plaintiff’s claim for a jury trial. As the action was originally brought, it contained a prayer for injunctive relief. The plaintiff has now waived this claim stating that there is no further need for it. The only other issues remaining are the questions of infringement of the copyright and damages. These are properly determinable by a jury. See Hutchinson Amusement Co. v. Vitaphone Corporation, 1 Cir., 93 F.2d 176, and Atlantic Monthly Co. v. Post Publishing Co., D.C., 27 F.2d 556.

I therefore rule that the plaintiff’s right to a jury trial is established. A formal waiver of the claim for injunctive relief is to be filed by the plaintiff.
M A N D A T E

TO THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO 2 of VICTORIA COUNTY, GREETINGS:

Before our Court of Appeals for the Thirteenth District of Texas, on the 25th day of June

2015, the cause upon appeal to revise or reverse your judgment between

Ruben Andres Baldez, Appellant,

v.

The State of Texas Appellee.

CAUSE NO. 13-14-00257-CR (Tr.Ct.No. 2-102358)

was determined; and therein our said Court made its order in these words:

THE THIRTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS, having considered this cause on appeal,

concludes that the judgment of the trial court should be AFFIRMED. The Court orders

the judgment of the trial court AFFIRMED.

We further order this decision certified below for observance.

      

WHEREFORE, WE COMMAND YOU to observe the order of our said Court of Appeals

for the Thirteenth District of Texas, in this behalf, and in all things have it duly

recognized, obeyed and executed.

WITNESS, the Hon. Rogelio Valdez, Chief Justice of our Court of Appeals, with the seal

thereof affixed, at the City of Edinburg, Texas this 27th day of June 2015.

Cecile Foy Gsanger, CLERK

FILE COPY
#### BURT et al. v. BILOFSKY et al.

Civ. No. 6529.

United States District Court D. New Jersey.

May 13, 1949.

*300Mock & Blum, New York City, for plaintiffs.

Morris Kirschstein, New York City, for defendants.

SMITH, District Judge.

This suit, which arises under the patent laws, was instituted pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C.A. § 400, now 28 U.S.C.A. § 2201. The plaintiffs filed a complaint in which they prayed a declaratory judgment on the issues of validity and infringement. The defendants filed a counterclaim in which they charged the plaintiffs with the infringement of the patent in suit and prayed injunctive relief and an accounting for profits. The suit is before the Court on a motion for summary judgment filed by the plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 56 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, 28 U.S.C.A.

The present motion is directed to the counterclaim and is predicated on the ground “that the defendants come into court with unclean hands in that they have unlawfully used the patent sued on in said counterclaim to extend the monopoly thereof to unpatented devices not covered by said patent.” There can be no doubt that the misuse of a patent will defeat the right of the patentee to maintain an action for its infringement. Carbice Corporation v. American Patents Development Corporation, 283 U.S. 27, 51 S.Ct. 334, 75 L.Ed. 819; Leitch Mfg. Co. v. Barber Co., 302 U.S. 458, 58 S.Ct. 288, 82 L.Ed. 371; Morton Salt Co. v. G. S. Suppiger Co., 314 U.S. 488, 788, 62 S.Ct. 402, 86 L.Ed. 363; Mercoid Corp. v. Mid-Continental Co., 320 U.S. 661, 64 S.Ct. 268, 88 L.Ed. 376. This defense, although available to the plaintiff, is here supported only by the affidavits of interested parties, and even these affidavits are lacking in that degree of certainty which must be demanded on a motion of this kind.

Rule 56 does not vest in the Court the jurisdiction to summarily try factual issues on the affidavits of the parties, but vests in the Court the limited authority to enter summary judgment only if it clearly appears from the record “that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” It is our opinion that the present record is so meager and inadequate that it will not support such a determination.

It appears that a similar motion was made in the case of Paul E. Hawkinson Co. v. Dennis, 5 Cir., 166 F.2d 61. It was therein stated, 166 F.2d at page 63: “The only effect of the misuse would be to prevent the unrepentant wrongdoer from invoking the aid of the court. It is quite clear, therefore, that if summary judgment procedure is to be effectively used by an infringer to permit him to continue to infringe without accountability, a case for summary judgment must be made out clearly and beyond the peradventure of a doubt.” We agree with this opinion.

The motion for summary judgment is dismissed.
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 8, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Page 32616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-16124]


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

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

National Institutes of Health


National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; 
Notice of Closed Meeting

    Pursuant to section 10(d) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act, as 
amended (5 U.S.C. App.), notice is hereby given of the following 
meeting.
    The meeting will be closed to the public in accordance with the 
provisions set forth in sections 552b(c)(4) and 552b(c)(6), Title 5 
U.S.C., as amended. The grant applications and the discussions could 
disclose confidential trade secrets or commercial property such as 
patentable material, and personal information concerning individuals 
associated with the grant applications, the disclosure of which would 
constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

    Name of Committee: National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive 
and Kidney Diseases Special Emphasis Panel; TINSAL-2D Ancillary and 
Supplement Applications.
    Date: July 15, 2009.
    Time: 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.
    Agenda: To review and evaluate grant applications.
    Place: National Institutes of Health, Two Democracy Plaza, 6707 
Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892, (Telephone Conference 
Call).
    Contact Person: Thomas A. Tatham, PhD, Scientific Review 
Officer, Review Branch, DEA, NIDDK, National Institutes of Health, 
Room 760, 6707 Democracy Boulevard, Bethesda, MD 20892-5452, (301) 
594-3993, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c1b5a0b5a9a0acb581aca0a8adefafa8a9efa6aeb7"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="4e3a2f3a262f233a0e232f27226020272660292138">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This notice is being published less than 15 days prior to the 
meeting due to the timing limitations imposed by the review and 
funding cycle.

(Catalogue of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Nos. 93.847, 
Diabetes, Endocrinology and Metabolic Research; 93.848, Digestive 
Diseases and Nutrition Research; 93.849, Kidney Diseases, Urology 
and Hematology Research, National Institutes of Health, HHS)

    Dated: June 30, 2009.
Jennifer Spaeth,
Director, Office of Federal Advisory Committee Policy.
[FR Doc. E9-16124 Filed 7-7-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4140-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Nicholas Tsakinis, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Supreme Court, New York County (Gregory Carro, J), rendered on or about March 3, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Tom, J.P, Saxe, Friedman, Catterson and McGuire, JJ.
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 96-1516
DORATHEA PENDERGRASS, Plaintiff - Appellant, versus GERALD F. LITTLEJOHN; PAUL YATES WHITMAN, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Greenville. William B. Traxler, Jr., District Judge. (CA-94-1224-6-21) Submitted: September 17, 1996 Decided: September 30, 1996 Before WIDENER, WILLIAMS, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Dorathea Pendergrass, Appellant Pro Se. Frank Barron Grier, III, GRIER LAW FIRM, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).2 PER CURIAM: Appellant appeals from the district court's order denying Appellant's Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 motion for a new trial. We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion and find no reversible error. We deny Appellant's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, and affirm on the reasoning of the district court. Pendergrass v. Littlejohn , No. CA-94-1224-6-21 (D.S.C. Feb. 15, 1996). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED
# table101_q12.3_state
**EXHIBIT
      32.2**




**CERTIFICATIONS
      PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF
      2002**




Keith
      Lowey, in the capacity of the officer who performs the functions of Principal
      Financial Officer, of Conihasset Capital Partners, Inc, a Delaware corporation
      (the “Registrant”), certifies that:




1.
      The
      Registrant’s Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2007
      (the “Form 10-Q”) fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
      of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and




2.
      The
      information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all material
      respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
      Registrant.


/s/
                  Keith LoweyKeith
                  LoweyChief
                  Financial Officer


Date:
      May
      15, 2007
COURT OF APPEALS

EIGHTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS

EL PASO, TEXAS

RICARDO FRANCO,

 Appellant,

v.

THE STATE OF TEXAS,

 Appellee. 

§

§

§

§

§

§

No. 08-15-00254-CR

Appeal from

41st District Court

of El Paso County, Texas

(TC # 20110D03180)

J U D G M E N T

The Court has considered this cause on the record and concludes there was no error in the 

judgment. We therefore affirm the judgment of the court below. This decision shall be certified 

below for observance.

IT IS SO ORDERED THIS 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2017.

ANN CRAWFORD McCLURE, Chief Justice

Before McClure, C.J., Rodriguez, and Hughes, JJ.

Hughes, J., not participating
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr.,

 Chief Justice

Michael F. Cavanagh

Marilyn Kelly

Stephen J. Markman

Diane M. Hathaway

Mary Beth Kelly

Brian K. Zahra, Justices

I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the 

foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court. 

 _________________________________________ 

 Clerk

June 28, 2011 

y0620 

Order 

 

June 28, 2011 

142587 

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, 

Plaintiff-Appellee, 

v SC: 142587 

 COA: 294402 

Kent CC: 09-002813-FH 

TROY ANTHONY WOODS, 

Defendant-Appellant. 

_________________________________________/ 

 On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 28, 2010 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is DENIED, because we are not 

persuaded that the questions presented should be reviewed by this Court.
<PAGE>

EXHIBIT 23.1


                         CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT ACCOUNTANTS'


The Board of Directors and Shareholders
FiberChem, Inc.

We hereby consent to the incorporation by reference in Registration 
Statements No. 33-61479 and 33-82330 on Form S-8 of our report dated November 
17, 1998, except for Note 12, as to which the date is December 22, 1998, 
related to the consolidated balance sheet of FiberChem, Inc. and Subsidiaries 
as of September 30, 1998, and the related consolidated statements of 
operations, shareholders' equity, and cash flows for the year then ended, 
which report appears in the September 30, 1998 annual report on Form 10-KSB 
of FiberChem, Inc. and Subsidiaries.




GOLDSTEIN GOLUB KESSLER LLP
New York, New York

January 12, 1999
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO

18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350

AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO

SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Stephen R. Brunner, Chief Executive
Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President of Constellation Energy Partners LLC, certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350 adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 that to my knowledge:

(i) The accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended March 31, 2011 fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) or Section 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and

(ii) The information
contained in such report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of Constellation Energy Partners LLC.



|                                                              
|--------------------------------------------------------------
|/s/ Stephen R. Brunner                                        
|Stephen R. Brunner                                            
|Chief Executive Officer, Chief Operating Officer and President

Date: May 6, 2011
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v Joshua Roy-Hill, Appellant.

[822 NYS2d 474]

Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County (Rena K. Uviller, J.), rendered on or about August 10, 2004, unanimously affirmed. No opinion. Order filed. Concur—Saxe, J.P, Marlow, Nardelli, Sweeny and Catterson, JJ.