alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 65 (Tuesday, April 5, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 18753]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8028]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. EL11-31-000]


City of Springfield, Illinois, City Water, Light and Power; 
Notice of Filing

    Take notice that on March 24, 2011, The City of Springfield, 
Illinois, City Water, Light and Power (CWLP), filed its proposed rate 
schedule, which specified CWLP's cost-based revenue requirements for 
Reactive Supply and Voltage Control from Generation Sources Service 
supplied by five CWLP generating units, pursuant to the Open Access 
Transmission and Energy Markets Tariff of the Midwest Independent 
Transmission System Operator, Inc, along with supporting testimony and 
data.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest this filing must 
file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's Rules of 
Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211, 385.214). Protests will be 
considered by the Commission in determining the appropriate action to 
be taken, but will not serve to make protestants parties to the 
proceeding. Any person wishing to become a party must file a notice of 
intervention or motion to intervene, as appropriate. Such notices, 
motions, or protests must be filed on or before the comment date. On or 
before the comment date, it is not necessary to serve motions to 
intervene or protests on persons other than the Applicant.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper using the ``eFiling'' link at http://www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file electronically should submit an 
original and 14 copies of the protest or intervention to the Federal 
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 
20426.
    This filing is accessible on-line at http://www.ferc.gov, using the 
``eLibrary'' link and is available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an ``eSubscription'' 
link on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail 
notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For 
assistance with any FERC Online service, please e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#ca8c8f988985a4a6a3a4af99bfbabaa5b8be8aacafb8a9e4ada5bc"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="662023342529080a0f080335131616091412260003140548010910">[email protected]</span></a>, or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For 
TTY, call (202) 502-8659.
    Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time on April 14, 2011.

    Dated: March 29, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8028 Filed 4-4-11; 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>
### §152. Repealed. June 17, 1930, ch. 497, title IV, §651(a)(1), 46 Stat. 762, eff. June 18, 1930

Section, act Sept. 21, 1922, ch. 356, title III, §313, 42 Stat. 940, related to drawbacks on certain articles made from imported materials. For corresponding provisions of Tariff Act of 1930, see section 1313 of this title.
Certificate Number: 16199-VAE-CC-032260806

16199-VAE-CC-032260806

CERTIFICATE OF COUNSELING

I CERTIFY that on February 6, 2019, at 5:59 o'clock PM EST, Suleyman

Turhanogullari received from CC Advising, Inc. , an agency approved pursuant to

11 U.S.C. § 111 to provide credit counseling in the Eastern District of Virginia, an

individual [or group] briefing that complied with the provisions of 11 U.S.C. §§

109(h) and 111.

A debt repayment plan was not prepared. If a debt repayment plan was prepared, a

copy of the debt repayment plan is attached to this certificate.

This counseling session was conducted by internet.

Date: February 6, 2019 By: /s/Jonathan Claussen for Sheharyar Khan

Name: Sheharyar Khan

Title: Credit Counselor

* Individuals who wish to file a bankruptcy case under title 11 of the United States Bankruptcy

Code are required to file with the United States Bankruptcy Court a completed certificate of

counseling from the nonprofit budget and credit counseling agency that provided the individual

the counseling services and a copy of the debt repayment plan, if any, developed through the

credit counseling agency. See 11 U.S.C. §§ 109(h) and 521(b).

Case 19-10575-BFK Doc 2 Filed 02/22/19 Entered 02/22/19 17:23:05 Desc Main

 Document Page 1 of 1
#### Elizabeth M. M. Golata v. Manhattan Hall Studios, Inc.

Present—Martin, P. J., Townley, Glennon, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
### §2015. Special reports to Congress

#### (a) Report on required comprehensive review

No later than August 31, 1968, the President shall submit to the Senate and the House of Representatives a special report on the comprehensive review called for by Article IV(c) of the Agreement. In such report he shall advise the Congress of the progress made toward the achievement of the objectives of Article I of the Agreement.

#### (b) Report on increase on Canadian value added

Whenever the President finds that any manufacturer has entered into any undertaking, by reason of governmental action, to increase the Canadian value added of automobiles, buses, specified commercial vehicles, or original equipment parts produced by such manufacturer in Canada after August 31, 1968, he shall report such finding to the Senate and the House of Representatives. The President shall also report whether such undertaking is additional to undertakings agreed to in letters of undertaking submitted by such manufacturer before October 21, 1965.

#### (c) Recommendations

The reports provided for in subsections (a) and (b) of this section shall include recommendations for such further steps, including legislative action, if any, as may be necessary for the achievement of the purposes of the Agreement and this chapter.

(Pub. L. 89–283, title II, §205, Oct. 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 1018.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### References in Text

The Agreement, referred to in subsecs. (a) and (c), is the Agreement Concerning Automotive Products, which was entered into between the United States and Canada on January 16, 1965, see Proc. No. 3682, Oct. 21, 1965, 30 F.R. 13683 and Proc. No. 3743, Sept. 8, 1966, 31 F.R. 12003, set out as notes under section 2011 of this title.

This chapter, referred to in subsec. (c), was in the original "this Act", meaning Pub. L. 89–283, Oct. 21, 1965, 79 Stat. 1016. For complete classification of this Act to the Code, see Short Title note set out under section 2001 of this title and Tables.
§ 694.1 What is the maximum amount that the Secretary may award each fiscal year to a Partnership or a State under this program? ( a ) *Partnership grants.* The Secretary may establish the maximum amount that may be awarded each fiscal year for a GEAR UP Partnership grant in a notice published in the Federal Register. The maximum amount for which a Partnership may apply may not exceed the lesser of the maximum amount established by the Secretary, if applicable, or the amount calculated by multiplying— ( 1 ) $800; by
( 2 ) The number of students the Partnership proposes to serve that year, as stated in the Partnership's plan.
( b ) *State grants.* The Secretary establishes the maximum amount that may be awarded each fiscal year for a GEAR UP State grant in a notice published in the Federal Register.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070a-23)
[65 FR 24760, Apr. 27, 2000, as amended at 75 FR 65798, Oct. 26, 2010]
§ 19.26 Alternate methods or procedures. ( a ) *General.* The appropriate TTB officer may approve the use of an alternate method or procedure that varies from the regulatory requirements in this part if the proprietor shows good cause for its use and the alternate method or procedure: ( 1 ) Is not contrary to law;
( 2 ) Will not have the effect of waiving an existing regulatory requirement;
( 3 ) Is consistent with the purpose and effect of the method or procedure prescribed in this part;
( 4 ) Provides equal security to the revenue; and
( 5 ) Will not cause an increase in cost to the Government and will not hinder TTB's administration of this part.
( b ) *Exceptions.* TTB will not authorize the use of an alternate method or procedure relating to the giving of any bond, or to the assessment, payment, or collection of tax.
( c ) *Prior approvals.* Alternate methods or procedures in effect prior to April 18, 2011, which are not contrary to the regulations in this part, are preserved until renewed unless revoked by operation of law due to the enactment of law that is contrary to the alternate method or procedure.
(26 U.S.C. 5552, 5556)
### Part II—European Economic Community
#### § 19.129 Change in trade name.

If the proprietor intends to change or add a trade name that will be used in the operation of the plant, the proprietor must file a letterhead application to amend the operating permit. The proprietor may not conduct operations under the new trade name before TTB approves the amended operating permit. However, the proprietor will not be required to file a new bond or consent of surety.

(26 U.S.C. 5271)
(No. 74-CC-456

#### Reed Leon Faith, Claimant, *vs.*State of Illinois, Department of Transportation, Respondent.

*Opinion filed April 8, 1974.*

Reed Leon Faith, Claimant, pro se.

*332William J. Scott, Attorney General; Howard W. Feldman, Assistant Attorney General, for Respondent.

Per Curiam.
#### Ben Jenkins et al., Respondents, v. Samuel Bloom, Defendant, and Mott Haven Feed Co., Inc., et al., Defendants-Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, TJntermyer, Dore and Callahan, JJ.
No. 21439.

#### Joan Scheuerman, et al., *v.*Robert O. Gunst.

(398 P.2d 47)

Decided January 11, 1965.

Burnett, Watson & Horan, for plaintiffs in error.

Michael T. Yaggalis, Stanley W. Prisner, for defendant in error.

*275
      *En Bañe.*

Mr. Justice Moore

delivered the opinion of the Court.

Plaintiffs in error were defendants in the trial court and we will refer to them as defendants. The action was commenced in the trial court by the defendant in error to whom we will refer as the plaintiff. By his complaint he sought to recover damages resulting from an automobile accident which occurred at the intersection of South Washington Street and East Iowa Avenue in the City and County of Denver.

The answer filed by the defendants denied the negligence attributed to them in the complaint. Further, it contained allegations that any injury complained of by the plaintiff “was caused either by the sole negligence of the plaintiff or by the contributory negligence of the plaintiff.”

The case was tried to a jury which returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff in the amount of $12,500.00. A motion for a new trial was filed and overruled. Judgment was then entered on the verdict. The case is before this court on defendants’ application for supersedeas which requests that a final determination be made. The plaintiff also requests a final determination on the application for supersedeas. Counsel for each of the parties expressly agree that the briefs submitted are sufficient to present their respective views, and that they have no intention of making any further or different arguments than those set forth in their written briefs.

The sole ground upon which defendants rely for reversal of the judgment is that the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction which was tendered by their counsel and refused by the trial court. That instruction reads as follows:

> “You are instructed to return your verdict in favor of the defendants, if you find and believe from a preponder*276anee of the evidence that the defendants were not guilty of any negligence which was a proximate cause of the injury sustained by the plaintiff.”

This offered instruction is not an accurate statement of the applicable law in that it is inconsistent with a proper instruction on burden of proof.

We have read the full transcript of the evidence and have given due consideration to all of the instructions given by the court. Under the circumstances disclosed by this inquiry we hold that no prejudicial error was committed by the refusal of the trial court to give the instruction tendered by defendants’ counsel. In view of other instructions which the court did give, it is inconceivable that the jury misapprehended the applicable law, or that it was in any way misled, to the prejudice of the defendants by the failure to give the tendered instruction.

The judgment accordingly is affirmed.
1 Appellant's deportation resulted from his convic tion in a New Jersey state court, on April 25, 1988, for possession with intent to distribute cocaine . For that offense, appellant received a 20- year prison sentence. He served that sentence until September 25, 1995, when he became eligible for parole. On that date, the state turned him over to the federal authorities, who immediately deported him. United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
No. 96-5159 Non-Argument Calendar. UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

v. Adriano A. PERALT-REYES a.k.a. Adriano An tonio Peraltra-Reyes, Defendant-Appellant. Dec. 18, 1997. Appeal from the United States Di strict Court for the Southern Di strict of Florida. (No. 95-1005-CrLenard), Joan A. Lenard, Judge. Before TJOFLAT, ANDERSON and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: On September 25, 1995, appellant was deported from the United States under the condition—issued as a warning—that he not reenter th is country for five years without the Attorney General's permission. 1 Appellant disregarded this warning and on October 30, 1995, arrived at Miami International Airport aboard a flight from the Dominican Republic. After he presented his alien registration card and a Dominican passport, an INS inspector determined, following a computer inquiry, that appellant had been deported fi ve weeks earlier. Appellant was read his Miranda rights, and waived his right to remain silent and to have the presence of counsel. He then stated: Look, this is what's going on. I was deported a month ago from the United States from New Jersey and I was told not to come back after five years, and I did, I' m here, just do whateveryou have to do. A grand jury of the Southern Di strict of Florida promptly indicted appellant for attempting to reenter the United States after having been deported. See8 U.S.C.A. §§ 1326(b), (b)(2) (West Supp.1997). A jury convicted him as charged, and, after sentencing, he took this appeal. Appellant presents four claims of error. None has merit, and only one is worthy of comment: appellant's claim that the district court erred in re fusing to instruct the jury that the charged offense is a specific intent crime, not a general intent crime as the court instructed the jury. In United States v. Henry, 111 F.3d 111, 114 (11th Cir.1997), we held that "s pecific intent is not an element of the offense of illegal reentry into the United States after deportation in violation of Title 8 U.S.C. § 1326." Appellant acknowledges that we are bound by Henry 's holding and seeks to distinguish it on the ground that appellant was charged with attempting to reenter the United States, not reentering. The First Circuit, in United States v. Reyes-Medina, 53 F.3d 327 (1 st Cir.1995) (unpublished), found no merit in this distinction. We find Reyes-Medina persuasive and adopt its holding.
AFFIRMED.
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

DAY HIGH

 6,336

 6,378

 7,512

 8,100

 9,167

 9,131

 9,002

 9,138

 8,558

 8,872

 8,829

 9,469

 8,253

 7,128

 6,654

 5,693

 6,076

 6,838

 7,225

 8,419

 8,972

 0

 9,573

 9,183

 9,247

 9,223

 8,086

 6,607

 6,683

 7,365

 7,478

 1,170

 1,481

 2,327

 2,056

 1,619

 1,301

 1,196

 1,506

 1,066

 1,774

 1,637

 1,583

 1,478

 1,477

 1,119

 1,165

 1,531

 1,946

 1,376

 1,469

 1,246

 0

 1,810

 1,515

 1,685

 1,796

 1,165

 1,538

 1,578

 1,976

 2,215

 3,859

 3,500

 4,205

 4,636

 4,929

 5,047

 5,129

 5,181

 4,844

 5,140

 5,225

 5,319

 5,096

 4,692

 4,038

 3,573

 3,407

 3,832

 4,013

 4,462

 4,766

 0

 5,164

 5,255

 5,331

 5,216

 4,439

 4,192

 4,124

 4,120

 4,174

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

U.S. BUREAU OF RECLAMATION-CENTRAL VALLEY PROJECT-CALIFORNIA

JULY 2021 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: January 27, 2022

ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS 

14 DAY

ACCUM

MEAN

14 DAY

AVG

MEAN

 73,107

 73,043

 73,034

 73,195

 73,093

 72,639

 72,132

 71,046

 69,478

 68,459

 67,635

 66,774

 66,708

 66,802

 66,981

 67,054

 66,256

 65,452

 64,536

 63,951

 63,588

 58,407

 58,727

 58,842

 58,948

 58,845

 58,188

 57,688

 57,774

 58,321

 59,088

 5,222

 5,217

 5,217

 5,228

 5,221

 5,189

 5,152

 5,075

 4,963

 4,890

 4,831

 4,770

 4,765

 4,772

 4,784

 4,790

 4,733

 4,675

 4,610

 4,568

 4,542

 4,172

 4,195

 4,203

 4,211

 4,203

 4,156

 4,121

 4,127

 4,166

 4,221

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

EMMATON BOTTOM ON THE SACRAMENTO RIVER
CENTRAL VALLEY OPERATIONS OFFICE

DELTA SMELT, SPLITTAIL and LONGFIN REPORT

August 2015

Note: Shaded area not verified with CDFW data Preliminary Data - Subject to Change

Delta Smelt Splittail Longfin Pumping

Daily Total Daily Total

Daily Combined Daily Combined Daily In CFS In Acre Feet

Total Daily 14-Day Total Daily 14-Day Total

SWP Larval 

Yor N CVP Larval Yor N Total Average SWP CVP Total Average SWP Larval Yor N CVP Larval Yor N

1-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 306 588 560 606 1,166 0.0 0.0 0.0

2-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 304 492 373 602 975 0.0 0.0 0.0

3-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 377 306 682 747 606 1,353 0.0 0.0 0.0

4-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 236 305 541 468 605 1,073 0.0 0.0 0.0

5-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 303 585 560 601 1,161 0.0 0.0 0.0

6-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 304 586 560 602 1,162 0.0 0.0 0.0

7-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 309 638 653 612 1,265 0.0 0.0 0.0

8-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 304 586 560 603 1,163 0.0 0.0 0.0

9-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 307 582 546 608 1,154 0.0 0.0 0.0

10-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 321 307 628 637 608 1,245 0.0 0.0 0.0

11-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 367 304 671 728 602 1,330 0.0 0.0 0.0

12-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275 306 581 546 606 1,152 0.0 0.0 0.0

13-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 282 304 586 560 603 1,163 0.0 0.0 0.0

14-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 303 491 373 601 974 0.0 0.0 0.0

15-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 308 496 373 610 983 0.0 0.0 0.0

16-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 329 320 649 653 635 1,288 0.0 0.0 0.0

17-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 188 304 492 373 603 976 0.0 0.0 0.0

18-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 742 240 982 1,471 477 1,948 0.0 0.0 0.0

19-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 967 0 967 1,918 0 1,918 0.0 0.0 0.0

20-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 944 3 947 1,872 6 1,878 0.0 0.0 0.0

21-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 521 412 934 1,034 818 1,852 0.0 0.0 0.0

22-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 548 413 961 1,087 819 1,906 0.0 0.0 0.0

23-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 548 499 1,047 1,087 989 2,076 0.0 0.0 0.0

24-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 647 405 1,052 1,283 804 2,087 0.0 0.0 0.0

25-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 647 810 1,457 1,283 1,606 2,889 0.0 0.0 0.0

26-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,781 1,781 0 3,533 3,533 0.0 0.0 0.0

27-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,857 1,857 0 3,684 3,684 0.0 0.0 0.0

28-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 659 1,861 2,520 1,307 3,692 4,999 0.0 0.0 0.0

29-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,530 965 4,495 7,002 1,914 8,916 0.0 0.0 0.0

30-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,747 956 4,704 7,433 1,897 9,330 0.0 0.0 0.0

31-Aug-15 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,515 961 4,476 6,972 1,907 8,879 0.0 0.0 0.0

Total 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 0 XXXX 0 0 21,688 16,365 38,053 43,019 32,459 75,478 XXXX 0.0 #VALUE!

Official data is posted on CDFW's webpage.

Preliminary

Delta Smelt Daily Density

Tracy Combined SWP CVP Combined

DATE

Banks Tracy Combined Banks
EXHIBIT 31.1

CERTIFICATION OF C.E.O. PURSUANT TO SECTION 302 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

I, Michael S. Hedge, certify that:

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-QSB of Datrek Miller International, Inc.

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 small business issuer as of, and for, the
periods presented in this report;

4. The small business issuer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(d)) for the small business issuer 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 small business issuer, 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
small business issuer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 small business issuers internal control over financial reporting that occurred during
the small business issuers most recent fiscal quarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting; and

5. The small business issuers other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting,
to the small business issuers auditors and the audit committee of the small business issuer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 small business issuers ability
to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and

(b) any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees
who have a significant role in the small business issuers internal control over financial reporting.

May 22,
2006



|                       
|-----------------------
|/s/ Michael S. Hedge   
|Michael S. Hedge       
|Chief Executive Officer
#### § 669.2 Who is eligible to receive assistance under this program?

An institution of higher education or a combination of institutions of higher education is eligible to receive an award under this part.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1123)