alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
50 Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 1 / Wednesday, January 2, 2002 / Proposed Rules 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[CA 252–312b; FRL–7118–2] 

Revisions to the California State 

Implementation Plan, Mojave Desert 

Air Quality Management District 

(MDAQMD)

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Mojave Desert Air 

Quality Management District portion of 

the California State Implementation 

Plan (SIP). These revisions concern 

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from 

cement kilns. We are proposing to 

approve the local rule to regulate these 

emission sources under the Clean Air 

Act as amended in 1990.

DATES: Any comments on this proposal 

must arrive by February 1, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to Andy 

Steckel, Rulemaking Office Chief (AIR–

4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne 

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

You can inspect copies of the 

submitted SIP revisions and EPA’s 

technical support document (TSD) at 

our Region IX office during normal 

business hours. You may also see copies 

of the submitted SIP revisions at the 

following locations: California Air 

Resources Board, Stationary Source 

Division, Rule Evaluation Section, 2020 

‘‘L’’ Street, Sacramento, CA 95812. 

Mojave Desert AQMD, 14306 Park 

Avenue, Victorville, CA 92392–2310

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Charnjit Bhullar, Rulemaking Office 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region IX, (415) 972–3960.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

proposal addresses the local rule: 

MDAQMD Rule 1161. In the Rules and 

Regulations section of this Federal 

Register, we are approving this local 

rule in a direct final action without 

prior proposal because we believe these 

SIP revisions are not controversial. If we 

receive adverse comments, however, we 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule and address the 

comments in subsequent action based 

on this proposed rule. We do not plan 

to open a second comment period, so 

anyone interested in commenting 

should do so at this time. If we do not 

receive adverse comments, no further 

activity is planned. For further 

information, please see the direct final 

action.

Dated: November 29, 2001. 

Laura Yoshii, 

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 01–32100 Filed 12–31–01; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<LEGEND>
THIS SCHEDULE CONTAINS SUMMARY FINANCIAL INFORMATION EXTRACTED FROM THE
CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEAR ENDED DECEMBER 31, 1997 AND IS
QUALIFIED IN ITS ENTIRETY BY REFERENCE TO SUCH FINANCIAL STATEMENTS.
</LEGEND>
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   12-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               DEC-31-1997
<CASH>                                           5,276
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                  102,420
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      1,637
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               115,359
<PP&E>                                         519,370
<DEPRECIATION>                               (117,179)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 646,333
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          123,109
<BONDS>                                        223,950
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                          0
<COMMON>                                           294
<OTHER-SE>                                     223,061
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   646,333
<SALES>                                      1,013,919
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             1,013,919
<CGS>                                          894,591
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                63,796
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              17,237
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                 40,129
<INCOME-TAX>                                    14,963
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                             25,166
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                    25,166
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                      .86
<EPS-DILUTED>                                      .86
        

</TABLE>
**FEDERAL****MINE SAFETY ANDHEALTHREVIEWCOMMISSION**

** **

SUNSHINEACTNOTICEBAC6735-01

January30, 2017

 

TIMEANDDATE:                10:00a.m.,Thursday,February16, 2017

 

PLACE:                                  TheRichardV.BackleyHearingRoom,Room511N,1331PennsylvaniaAvenue,NW,Washington,DC20004(enterfromFStreetentrance)

 

STATUS:                                Open

 

MATTERS TO BE

CONSIDERED:                     TheCommissionwillconsiderandactuponthefollowinginopen

session:*Secretary****ofLaborv.CanyonFuelCompany,LLC,*DocketNos.WEST2015-635,etal.(IssuesincludewhethertheJudgeerredinconcludingthattheoperatorhadviolatedstandardsgoverningthe safetyof alternativeescapeways.)

 

 

Anypersonattendingthismeetingwhorequiresspecialaccessibilityfeaturesand/orauxiliaryaids,suchassignlanguageinterpreters,mustinformtheCommissioninadvanceofthoseneeds.Subjectto 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

 

 

CONTACT PERSON

FORMORE INFO:                Emogene Johnson (202)434-9935/ (202) 708-9300for TDD

Relay/1-800-877-8339for toll free.

 

 

PHONENUMBERFORLISTENINGTO

ARGUMENT:1-(866) 867-4769

Passcode:129-339

 

 

 

 

SarahL.StewartDeputyGeneralCounsel
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





In
      connection with the Annual Report of Gundle/SLT Environmental, Inc. (the
“Company”) on Form 10-K/A for the period ending December 31, 2006 (the
“Report”), as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
      hereof, I, Ernest C. English, Vice President and Chief Financial 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:





1.
            The
                Report 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 Report fairly presents, in all material
                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the
                Company.




/s/
                ERNEST C. ENGLISHErnest
                C. EnglishVice
                President and Chief Financial OfficerApril
                30, 2007





A
      signed
      original of this written statement, required by Section 906, has been provided
      to the Company and will be retained by the Company and furnished to the
      Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
<PAGE>

                                                                   EXHIBIT 99.2
                            CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                  SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report of Quiksilver, Inc. (the "Company") on Form
10-K for the period ending October 31, 2002 as filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Steven L. Brink, Chief
Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

         (1)      The Report fully complies with the requirements of section
13(a) or 15(d) 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 result of operations of the
Company.

/s/ Steven L. Brink
-------------------
Steven L. Brink
Chief Financial Officer
January 28, 2003

                                       59
Smith Barney Futures Management LLC
                         388 Greenwich Street, 7th Floor
                          New York, New York 10013-2396

June 11, 2001


Stonebrook Capital Management, Inc.
17 State Street - 38th Floor
New York, N.Y. 10004

Attention:  Mr. Jerome Abernathy

         Re:      Management Agreement Renewals

Dear Mr. Abernathy:

We are  writing  with  respect  to your  management  agreements  concerning  the
commodity pools to which reference is made below (the "Management  Agreements").
We are extending the term of the Management Agreements through June 30, 2002 and
all other provisions of the Management Agreements will remain unchanged.

        Smith Barney Diversified Futures Fund L.P.
        Smith Barney Diversified Futueres Fund L.P. II
        Smith Barney Stonebrook FX Fund plc.

Please  acknowledge  receipt of this  modification  by signing  one copy of this
letter and returning it to the attention of Mr. Daniel  McAuliffe at the address
above or fax to  212-723-8985.  If you have any  questions  I can be  reached at
212-723-5435.

Very truly yours,

SMITH BARNEY FUTURES MANAGEMENT LLC


By:      /S/Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         ----------------------------
         Daniel R. McAuliffe, Jr.
         Chief Financial Officer & Director


AGREED AND ACCEPTED
STONEBROOK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT, INC.
By:


Print Name:


DRMcA/sr
Exhibit 99.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of EarthShell Corporation (the "Company")
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Simon K. Hodson, Chief Executive Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/SIMON K. HODSONSimon K. Hodson
Chief Executive Officer
Date: April 15, 2003
| |  | ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Annual Report on Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2002 of EarthShell Corporation (the "Company")
as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, D. Scott Houston, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350,
as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:



| |  | /s/D. SCOTT HOUSTOND. Scott Houston
Chief Financial Officer
Date: April 15, 2003
| |  | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
* Pursuant to Local Rule 47.5, the court has determined

that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent

except under the limited circumstances set forth in Local Rule

47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

 

No. 96-30399

Summary Calendar

 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus

JAVIEL SORIANO; GILMAR RIASCOS, 

Defendants-Appellants.

- - - - - - - - - -

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

USDC No. 94-CR-288-L

- - - - - - - - - -

June 3, 1997

Before JONES, DeMOSS and PARKER, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Court-appointed counsel for Javiel Soriano has moved to

withdraw and has filed an accompanying brief as required by

Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967). Soriano has filed a

pro se response brief. Our independent review of counsel’s

brief, Soriano’s response, and the record discloses no

nonfrivolous issue for appeal. Accordingly, counsel is excused

from further responsibilities in Soriano’s appeal, and Soriano’s
No.

- 2 -

APPEAL IS DISMISSED. See 5th Cir. R. 42.2.
FEDERAL MINE SAFETY AND HEALTH REVIEW COMMISSION

SUNSHINE ACT NOTICE

BAC 6735-01

December 5, 2014

TIME AND DATE: 2:00 p.m., Thursday, December 18, 2014

PLACE: The Richard V. Backley Hearing Room, Room 511N, 1331 

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20004 (enter from 

F Street entrance)

STATUS: Open 

MATTERS TO BE 

CONSIDERED: The Commission will consider and act upon the following in open 

session: Secretary of Labor v. Small Mine Development, Docket 

Nos. WEST 2011-1351-M, et al. (Issues include whether the 

Administrative Law Judge erred in concluding that a refuge must 

be installed during exploration or development of an ore body 

when the operator decides not to construct a second escapeway.)

Any person attending this meeting who requires special 

accessibility features and/or auxiliary aids, such as sign language 

interpreters, must inform the Commission in advance of those 

needs. Subject to 29 C.F.R. § 2706.150(a)(3) and § 2706.160(d).

CONTACT PERSON 

FOR MORE INFO: Emogene Johnson (202) 434-9935 / (202) 708-9300 for TDD

Relay / 1-800-877-8339 for toll free.

__________________________________

Sarah L. Stewart

Deputy General Counsel
rom 4506-A

(Rev. February 1989)
Department of the Treasury
Internal Revenue Service

Request for Public
of Exempt Organ

Inspection or Copy
ization Tax Form

‘OMB No. 1545-0495
Expires: 2-29-92

1 Name and address of exempt organization (Ifa multiple request, please
attach list of names, forms, and periods)

4 Employer identification number of exempt organization (If known)

5 Tax form requested 8 Date requested

2 Mail copies to (Show Taxpayer Service, and district or local IRS office
address)

1 Form990
(1 Form 990-PF
0 other 9 Document locator number (If known)

6 Type of request

im
Oo

10 IRS service center where tax form

Photocopy was filed

Inspection

3. Requester (Name, address, and telephone number)

i.

IRS office where inspection will be
made

7 Tax year requested
or
CO Latest return on file

IRS Use Only
12. For returns files: C1 Copy of requested tax form is attached. CT We find no record of requested tax form.
13. The tax form requested above was inspected (Name of requester) 15 _ IRS office where inspection was made

14 Signature of employee present at inspection

16 Date

Instructions

Paperwork Reduction Act Notice. —We ask for this
information to carry out the Internal Revenue laws of the
United States. We need the information to gain access to
the return you requested in our files and properly respond to
your request. If you do not furnish the information, we may
not be able to fill your request.

The time needed to complete and file this form will vary
depending on individual circumstances. The estimated
average time is:

Recordkeeping . . 7 minutes
Learning about the law or the form. . 2minutes
Preparing the form .17 minutes
Copying, assembling and sending

theformtoIRS . . -14 minutes

If you have comments conceming! the accuracy of these
time estimates or suggestions for making this form more
simple, we would be happy to hear from you. You can write
to the Internal Revenue Service, Washington, DC 20224,

Attention: IRS Reports Clearance Officer, TR:FP; or the
Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction
Project (1545-0495), Washington, DC 20503.

This form can be used to request a copy or to inspect an
exempt organization return.

If a copy of the return is requested, there will be a charge
of $1 for the first page and $.15 for each additional page. If
your request will cost less than $50 and you do not include
the payment at the time you make the request, we will bill
you for the amount when we send your copies. If your
request costs $50 or more, we will bill you prior to sending
your copies.

There is no charge for inspection of a return at an IRS
office.

Item 1—The name of the organization should be the
official name (that is, the name under which exempt status
was recognized). If it is not used, we may not be able to
locate the return being requested.

Item 7—If a specific tax year is needed, enter the year. If not,
check the box for the latest return filed.

Form 4506-A (Rev. 2-89)
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN

JUDGMENT RENDERED NOVEMBER 8, 2017

NO. 03-17-00386-CV

Pejman Dargahi; Kamran Dargahi; and Yekk Construction Services, LLC d/b/a

Lakeway Custom Homes and Renovation, Appellants

v.

Dhiraj Handa and Ritu Handa, Appellees

APPEAL FROM THE 261ST DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY

BEFORE JUSTICES PURYEAR, FIELD, AND BOURLAND

REVERSED AND RENDERED -- OPINION BY JUSTICE PURYEAR

This is an appeal from the interlocutory order signed by the trial court on May 30, 2017. Having 

reviewed the record and the parties’ arguments, the Court holds that there was reversible error 

in the order. Therefore, the Court reverses the trial court’s interlocutory order and renders 

judgment granting appellants’ motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings. Appellees

shall pay all costs relating to this appeal, both in this Court and the court below.
#### TOTOLO/KING JOINT VENTURE, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 2010-5037.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Sept. 9, 2010.

Before LOURIE, Circuit Judge.

*873ON MOTION

ORDER

Totolo/King Joint Venture (“Toto-lo/King”) moves to abate its appeal pending a ruling upon a motion Totolo/King has indicated that it will file in the Court of Federal Claims. The government moves to dismiss the appeal as moot on the basis that Totolo/King is not an interested party.

Totolo/King’s motion for abatement requests a remand to the Court of Federal Claims in order to move that court for relief from its judgment based on an alleged discovery that the government put in the record a falsified document with the intent to mislead the court. Because Toto-lo/King has not offered a reasonable basis for its failure to challenge the government’s evidence before the Court of Federal Claims, in advance of its appeal, we deny its motion. Totolo/King may make such a motion at the Court of Federal Claims, see R. Ct. Fed. Cl. 60(b) (allowing Court of Federal Claims to reopen proceedings for “excusable neglect” or “newly discovered evidence that, with reasonable diligence, could not have been discovered in time to move for a new trial under RCFC 59(b)”), but we will not open the record for such evidence in this appeal, *see Moore U.S.A. v. Std. Register Co.,*229 F.3d 1091, 1116 (Fed.Cir.2000) (“We are especially reluctant to expand the record on appeal where, as here, the party seeking expansion of the record offers no reasonable basis for its failure to produce the proffered evidence at an earlier time.”).

The government’s motion to dismiss asserts that, on April 16, 2010, William Toto-lo, owner of Totolo/King died. According to the government, because Mr. Totolo, the veteran owner of Totolo/King, is deceased, Totolo/King is not an interested party, as it is no longer a Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business. Thus, the government argues, Totolo/King does not have standing. Rather than rule on the substantive issues raised by the government, we deem the better course is for the parties to address the issues raised by the government’s motion in them briefs, if appropriate.

Accordingly,

It Is Ordered That:

(1) Totolo/King’s motion for abatement is denied.

(2) The government’s motion to dismiss is denied without prejudice to the parties raising the issues in the briefs.
1

The Honorable Richard H. Battey, United States District Judge for the District

of South Dakota, sitting by designation. 

2

The Honorable Robert W. Pratt, United States District Judge for the Southern

District of Iowa.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 01-2389

___________

United States of America, * 

* Appeal from the United States

 Appellee, * District Court for the Southern

* District of Iowa. 

 vs. * 

* [UNPUBLISHED]

Brian J. Tigner, *

*

 Appellant. *

___________

Submitted: December 11, 2001

 Filed: January 16, 2002 

___________

Before, McMILLIAN and MURPHY, Circuit Judges, and BATTEY,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Brian J. Tigner pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine and marijuana

in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846. He appeals the extent of the district court’s2
3

Tigner initially sought appeal of a two-point enhancement he received under

U.S.S.G. § 4A1.1(d), but he has withdrawn this issue.

-2-

downward departure.3 We affirm. 

The district court classified Tigner’s initial base offense level at 26. He was

given a three-level reduction for his acceptance of responsibility which resulted in an

offense level of 23. Counsel for the government and the defense had reached a

stipulation as to this offense level. Tigner, however, did object to the district court’s

determination of a criminal history category VI. 

The district court found that the criminal history category VI was applicable,

which resulted in a sentence range of 92 to 115 months. The court sentenced Tigner

to 115 months, the top of the sentencing range, but then departed downward to 100

months upon the government’s § 5K1.1 motion. Tigner was also credited with 38

months already served on related conduct which resulted in a 62-month sentence

remaining to be served. 

We do not review the extent of a district court’s downward departure regardless

of the court’s reasons for not departing further. United States v. McCarthy, 97 F.3d

1562, 1577 (8th Cir. 1996) (citations omitted). It should be noted that Tigner does not

allege that the district court refused to depart further for an unconstitutional reason

or that the court acted in bad faith. See id. (citing United States v. Alvarez, 51 F.3d

36, 41 (5th Cir. 1995) (holding once the district court has a valid reason for departing,

the court may use any factor to determine the extent of the departure; the resulting

sentence is unreviewable unless it is in violation of federal constitutional or statutory

law). Hence, “[a]ll the statute and the Guidelines require is that the reasons for the

departure be stated.” Id. (citations omitted). 

Although the district court did not provide reasons for the departure which are
-3-

identical to the factors listed in § 5K1.1, we find that it did appropriately follow the

rationale of the section. The district court did state the reason for its departure.

Consequently, the extent of the departure is not reviewable. Id. Accordingly, we

affirm the judgment of the district court.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.