alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 68 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Notices]
[Page 19766]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-8392]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2256-000]


California Independent System Operator Corporation; Notice of 
Technical Conference

    By order dated March 17, 2011, in Docket No. ER11-2256-000, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (Commission) directed staff to 
convene a technical conference regarding California Independent System 
Operator Corporation's (CAISO) Capacity Procurement Mechanism (CPM) and 
exceptional dispatch mitigation provisions.\1\ Take notice that such 
conference will be held on April 28, 2011 at the Commission's 
headquarters at 888 First Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426, beginning 
at 9 a.m. (EDT) in the Commission Meeting Room (Room 2C). The technical 
conference will be led by Commission staff.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Cal. Indep. Trans. Sys. Op. Corp., 134 FERC ] 61,211, at P 2 
(2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The purpose of the technical conference is to discuss the issues 
raised by CAISO's proposed CPM compensation methodology and 
continuation of the existing exceptional dispatch market power 
mitigation provisions. A subsequent notice detailing the topics to be 
discussed will be issued in advance of the conference.
    FERC conferences are accessible under section 508 of the 
Rehabilitation Act of 1973. For accessibility accommodations please 
send an e-mail to <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#9ffefcfcfaececf6fdf6f3f6ebe6dff9faedfcb1f8f0e9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="93f2f0f0f6e0e0faf1fafffae7ead3f5f6e1f0bdf4fce5">[email protected]</span></a> or call toll free 1-866-208-
3372 (voice) or 202-208-8659 (TTY); or send a fax to 202-208-2106 with 
the required accommodations.
    All parties are permitted to attend. For more information on this 
conference, please contact Katheryn Hoke at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#e883899c808d9a9186c68087838da88e8d9a8bc68f879e"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="7a111b0e121f080314541215111f3a1c1f0819541d150c">[email protected]</span></a> or 
(202) 502-8404, or Colleen Farrell at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#7714181b1b1212195911160505121b1b371112051459101801"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="c7a4a8ababa2a2a9e9a1a6b5b5a2abab87a1a2b5a4e9a0a8b1">[email protected]</span></a> or (202) 
502-6751.

    Dated: April 1, 2011.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2011-8392 Filed 4-7-11; 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>
#### § 234.57 Effect of payment on other benefits.

The tier II separation allowance lump-sum payment has no effect on the payment of other benefits.
Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan

Robert P. Young, Jr., Chief Justice

Stephen J. Markman

Brian K. Zahra

Bridget M. McCormack

David F. Viviano 

Richard H. Bernstein

Joan L. Larsen, Justices

I, Larry S. Royster, 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.

 November 2, 2016

p1026

Order 

Clerk

November 2, 2016

153331

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN,

Plaintiff-Appellee,

v SC: 153331

COA: 324118 

Kalamazoo CC: 2014-000721-FC

MARQUISE LARNELL WREN,

Defendant-Appellant.

____________________________________/

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the January 19, 2016 

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.
#### Edward A. JIRON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. COLORADO SUPREME COURT; Colorado Court of Appeals (Judge Webb), Defendants-Appellees.

No. 05-1453.

United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.

Aug. 4, 2006.

Edward A. Jirón, Denver, CO, pro se.

John W. Suthers, Attorney General, State of Colorado, Department of Law, Denver, CO, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before KELLY, McKAY, and LUCERO, Circuit Judges.

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

MONROE G. McKAY, Circuit Judge.

After examining the briefs and the appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the resolution of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument.

Mr. Jirón filed a pro se civil rights complaint and sought habeas relief from the district court. The district court construed his filing as claiming disagreement with decisions by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which dismissed his appeal, and the Colorado Supreme Court, which denied certiorari and declined to review his petition.

The district court determined that Mr. Jiron’s challenge of state court decisions was barred by the *Rooker-Feldman*doctrine and therefore dismissed his complaint and action for lack of jurisdiction. Order, 3 (D.Colo. Mar. 16, 2005). Mr. Jirón then filed a motion to reconsider the judgment of dismissal, which the district court also denied. Order Denying Motion to Reconsider, 3 (D.Colo. Sept. 2, 2005). Finally, the district court, applying 28 U.S.C. § 1915, denied Mr. Jirón leave to appeal. Order (D.Colo. Oct. 27, 2005). While we have not determined whether the standard of review of an order denying leave to appeal under § 1915 is de novo or abuse of discretion, we would reach the same decision under either standard in this case. *See Plunk v. Givens,*234 F.3d 1128,1130 (10th Cir.2000).

We have carefully reviewed Mr. Jiron’s brief, the district court’s orders, and the record on appeal, and for substantially similar reasons to the those laid out by the district court in its March 16, 2005, and September 2, 2005, orders, we AFFIRM the district court’s dismissal of Mr. Jiron’s claim and the district court’s denial of leave to appeal. We grant Mr. Jiron’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis.

*

 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judgments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and conditions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3.
Exhibit 32

                            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 Chardan China  Acquisition  Corp.  (the
"Company")  on Form 10-KSB for the period ended  December 31, 2005 as filed with
the Securities and Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report"),  the
undersigned,  in the  capacities  and  on  the  dates  indicated  below,  hereby
certifies 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 results of operation of the Company.

March 17, 2006                                          /s/ Kerry Propper
                                                        ------------------------
                                                        Kerry Propper
                                                        Chief Financial Officer
**EXHIBIT32.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO**

**18 USC, SECTION 1350,**

**AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**

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

 

          In connection with the amended annual report of Northern Ethanol, Inc. (the “Company”) on Form 10-KSB/A1 for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2007, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the “Report”), I, the undersigned, in the capacity and on the date indicated        below, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge:

 

|   | 1. | The Report fully complies with the requirements of Rule 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 results of operations of the Company. |
|--------|----|------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

| Dated: September 23, 2008 | s/ Richard Smith___________________   |
|---------------------------|--------------------------------------------|

|   | Richard Smith, Chief Financial Officer |
|--------|----------------------------------------|
#### Frances L. Elberty v. Robert S. Elberty.

*828Present — Martin, P. J., Townley, Untermyer, Dore and Cohn, JJ.
# EUR-Lex - 52012PC0101 - EN

*|*

# 52012PC0101

**COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSIONTO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENTpursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Unionconcerning the position of the Council on the adoption of a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation (EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports, transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items /* COM/2012/0101 final - 2010/0262 (COD) */**

			*

			*

2010/0262 (COD)

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
pursuant to Article 294(6) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European
Union
concerning the

position of the Council on the adoption of
a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation
(EC) No 428/2009 setting up a Community regime for the control of exports,
transfer, brokering and transit of dual use items

1.           Background

Date of transmission of the proposal to the European Parliament and to the Council (document COM(2010) 509 final – 2010/0262 COD): || 27/09/2010

Date of the position of the European Parliament, first reading: || 13/09/2011

Date of adoption of the position of the Council: || 21/02/2012

2.           Objective
of the proposal from the Commission

The EU dual-use export control system, as
set out in Regulation (EC) No 428/2009, requires an authorisation for the
export of dual-use items listed in Annex I to the Regulation. Under Article 15
of the Regulation, "the list of dual-use items set out in Annex I shall be
updated in conformity with the relevant obligations and commitments, and any
modification thereof, that Member States have accepted as members of the
international non-proliferation regimes and export control arrangements, or by
ratification of relevant international treaties".

The objective of the Commission's proposal
is therefore to update the control list set out in Annex I of the Regulation,
by introducing modifications agreed in the international export control
regimes.

3.           Comments
on the position of the Council

The original proposal of the Commission
covered modifications of the control list agreed in the international export
control regimes in 2009. The Council's position envisages further updating the
control list with modifications agreed in the export control regimes in 2010.
Including both the 2009 and 2010 control list modifications in the current
update exercise will allow the EU to adhere to its international commitments
with regard to export controls and will significantly help EU exporters.

4.           Comments
on the position of the European Parliament

The European Parliament endorsed the
original proposal of the Commission on 13 September 2011 and has expressed its
support for integrating additional modifications to the control list in line
with international commitments as suggested by the Council.

5.           Conclusion

The Commission accepts the position taken
by the Council.
Exhibit 12
                              U S WEST, Inc.
             RATIO OF EARNINGS TO COMBINED FIXED CHARGES AND
                        PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
                          (Dollars in Millions)

<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                  Quarter Ended
                                                 3/31/98   3/31/97
------------------------------------------      --------  --------
<S>                                            <C>       <C>    
Income before income taxes and
  extraordinary item                           $   365   $   400
Interest expense (net of amounts
  capitalized)                                     247       278
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    25        25
Equity losses in unconsolidated
  ventures (less than 50% owned)                    75       105
Guaranteed minority interest expense                22        22
                                                --------  --------
Earnings                                       $   734   $   830

Interest expense                               $   263   $   288
Interest factor on rentals (1/3)                    25        25
Guaranteed minority interest expense                22        22
Preferred stock dividends (pre-tax
  equivalent)                                       23        22
                                                --------  --------
Fixed charges                                  $   333   $   357

Ratio of earnings to combined fixed
  charges and preferred stock dividends           2.20      2.32
------------------------------------------      --------  --------
</TABLE>
PKY-2015-06.15-8K-EX 10.5 Bates






EXHIBIT 10.5




AMENDMENT TO THE
EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PARKWAY PROPERTIES, INC. AND JASON A. BATES


The Employment Agreement (the “Agreement”), dated December 22, 2014, between Parkway Properties, Inc., a Maryland corporation (the “Company”), and Jason A. Bates (the “Executive”), is hereby amended in the following manner (the “Amendment”), in accordance with Section 13(c) of the Agreement.
		
	1.
	Section 3(b) of the Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following:




In addition to the Base Salary, during the Term, the Executive shall be eligible to participate in the Company’s discretionary annual incentive plan (the “AIP”) as may be established and approved by the Board or the Committee from time to time and, pursuant to the AIP, the Executive may earn an annual bonus (the “Annual Bonus”) in each fiscal year during the Term, with a target Annual Bonus opportunity of fifty percent (50%) of Base Salary (the “Target Bonus”); provided, that the Board or the Committee shall annually review the Executive’s Target Bonus and, in its sole discretion, may increase the Executive’s Target Bonus, and references in this Agreement to Target Bonus shall refer to the Target Bonus as may be increased by the Board or the Committee.  The Annual Bonus actually paid, if any, in any fiscal year shall be determined by the Chief Executive Officer and the Board or the Committee based upon the achievement of annual performance objectives established by the Chief Executive Officer and the Board from time to time. The Annual Bonus shall be paid no later than two and one-half (2.5) months following the end of the fiscal year to which such Annual Bonus relates, subject to the Executive’s continued employment with the Company on the applicable payment date, except as otherwise provided in Sections 6(a) and 6(b).


		
	2.
	Except as expressly amended hereby, the terms of the Agreement shall be and remain unchanged, and the Agreement as amended hereby shall remain in full force and effect.































IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Company and the Executive have executed this Amendment to the Agreement, effective as of this 15th day of June, 2015.


	
		
	EXECUTIVE:

	/s/ Jason A. Bates

	Jason A. Bates

	 

	PARKWAY PROPERTIES, INC.

	 
	 

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ James R. Heistand

	Name:
	James R. Heistand

	Title:
	President and Chief Executive Officer

	 
	 

	 
	 

	By:
	/s/ Jeremy R. Dorsett

	Name:
	Jeremy R. Dorsett

	Title:
	Executive Vice President and General Counsel
#### § 1002.38 Can a hiring hall be an employer?

Yes. In certain occupations (for example, longshoreman, stagehand, construction worker), the employee may frequently work for many different employers. A hiring hall operated by a union or an employer association typically assigns the employee to the jobs. In these industries, it may not be unusual for the employee to work his or her entire career in a series of short-term job assignments. The definition of “employer” includes a person, institution, organization, or other entity to which the employer has delegated the performance of employment-related responsibilities. A hiring hall therefore is considered the employee's employer if the hiring and job assignment functions have been delegated by an employer to the hiring hall. As the employer, a hiring hall has reemployment responsibilities to its employees. USERRA's anti-discrimination and anti-retaliation provisions also apply to the hiring hall.
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

 131

 120

 104

 128

 132

 133

 131

 125

 124

 115

 123

 108

 121

 124

 117

 103

 117

 119

 113

 113

 125

 124

 108

 124

 130

 121

 115

 115

 116

 119

 121

 94

 93

 88

 90

 94

 94

 92

 90

 89

 88

 87

 88

 85

 87

 85

 83

 82

 80

 81

 81

 84

 84

 88

 88

 86

 84

 84

 88

 85

 83

 80

 101

 98

 93

 97

 99

 98

 98

 93

 95

 92

 94

 91

 90

 91

 90

 86

 88

 84

 86

 85

 92

 90

 91

 94

 96

 91

 92

 93

 90

 89

 89

LOW MEAN

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

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

JULY 2005 WATER QUALITY REPORT RUN DATE: August 2, 2005

HIGH LOW MEAN

 79.8

 79.6

 78.9

 79.0

 78.7

 78.6

 78.4

 77.1

 76.4

 76.3

 78.1

 79.8

 78.7

 80.7

 80.6

 80.5

 80.6

 79.9

 79.2

 78.8

 77.9

 77.7

 79.0

 80.2

 79.2

 79.9

 79.2

 78.6

 78.6

 79.2

 79.9

 73.5

 74.0

 73.2

 72.8

 73.0

 72.6

 72.9

 71.7

 71.1

 70.4

 71.9

 73.4

 75.0

 75.2

 74.8

 74.8

 74.9

 74.5

 73.7

 73.3

 74.1

 72.0

 72.2

 73.9

 74.0

 73.6

 73.8

 73.2

 73.0

 73.2

 73.8

 76.4

 76.7

 76.1

 75.9

 75.8

 75.4

 75.4

 74.3

 73.6

 73.3

 74.8

 76.4

 76.4

 78.3

 77.6

 77.5

 77.6

 77.2

 76.4

 76.0

 76.0

 74.8

 75.5

 76.7

 76.5

 76.6

 76.5

 75.9

 75.7

 76.0

 76.6

HIGH LOW MEAN

 7.9

 8.1

 8.1

 8.1

 8.3

 8.2

 8.1

 8.1

 8.2

 8.1

 8.4

 8.2

 7.8

 8.4

 8.3

 8.4

 8.3

 8.6

 8.6

 8.6

 8.5

 8.6

 8.5

 8.3

 8.5

 8.5

 8.4

 8.9

 8.9

 8.9

 8.7

 7.2

 6.9

 7.2

 7.2

 7.1

 7.3

 7.2

 7.2

 7.3

 7.3

 7.0

 7.4

 7.1

 7.5

 7.3

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.4

 7.7

 7.8

 7.6

 7.5

 7.4

 7.6

 7.5

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.6

 7.7

 7.6

 7.7

 7.7

 7.3

 7.9

 7.7

 7.8

 7.7

 7.9

 8.0

 8.0

 8.0

 8.1

 7.9

 7.8

 7.8

 7.8

 7.8

 7.9

 8.2

 8.1

 8.0

Comments:

0 reading indicates that the station was out of service.

RIPON ON THE STANISLAUS RIVER

 ELECTRICAL CONDUCTIVITY, UMHOS WATER TEMPERATURE, DEG DISSOLVED OXYZEN, PPM
§ 322.7 Dismissal, coordination, and separation allowances. ( a ) *Coordination or dismissal allowance.* Coordination or dismissal allowances are payments made to an employee who has been furloughed for a specified period of time during which he or she continues in an employment relationship and remains subject to call. Such pay is remuneration with respect to each day in the month or other period for which it is payable. The employer shall be held liable to the Board for any benefits paid to the employee and found recoverable under section 2(f) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act by reason of the payment of any such allowances or other pay for the same days for which the Board paid benefits.
( b ) *Separation allowance.* A separation allowance or severance payment made to an employee who voluntarily or involuntarily terminates his or her employment relationship is not remuneration with respect to any day after the employment relationship is severed. An employee who is paid a separation allowance, whether in a lump sum or in installments, is disqualified by section 4(a-1)(iii) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act from receiving unemployment or sickness benefits for the period of time approximating the length of time it would have taken the employee to earn, at his or her “straight” time rate of pay, the amount of the separation allowance if he or she had continued working in the job from which he or she separated.
[65 FR 14460, Mar. 17, 2000]
### SUBCHAPTER III—OTHER NATIONS
#### Ezell EDWARDS, Plaintiff — Appellant, v. USS-POSCO INDUSTRIES; et al., Defendants — Appellees.

Nos. 04-16481, 04-16774.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.

Submitted Feb. 13, 2006.*

Filed Feb. 21, 2006.

*756Ezell Edwards, Oakland, CA, pro se.

Cory S. Anderson, Esq., Christopher A. Conkling, Pittsburg, CA, for Defendants-Appellees.

Before: FERNANDEZ, RYMER, and BYBEE, Circuit Judges.

*

 The panel unanimously finds this case suitable for decision without oral argument. *See*Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2).

MEMORANDUM ***

Ezell Edwards appeals pro se from the district court’s summary judgment in his action under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and California law, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation when USS-POSCO Industries and supervisor Lynnette Giacobazzi terminated Edwards’ employment. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review de novo, *Wallis v. J.R. Simplot Co.,*26 F.3d 885, 888 (9th Cir.1994), and we affirm.

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’ race discrimination claim because Edwards failed to raise a triable issue that similarly-situated, non-minority employees were treated differently, and therefore failed to show a *prima facie*case. *See id.*at 889. Further, even if he had done so and thereby shifted the burden, USS-POSCO articulated a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Edwards, by submitting evidence that he made a series of threats against employees and supervisors. *See id.*

The district court properly granted summary judgment on Edwards’ retaliation claim because Edwards failed to raise a triable issue regarding a causal link between his racial discrimination complaints and his termination. *See Brooks v. City of San Mateo,*229 F.3d 917, 928 (9th Cir. 2000). Further, even if Edwards had shown a prima facie case, USS-POSCO satisfied its burden to show a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for terminating Edwards. *See id.*

The district court properly dismissed Edwards’ hostile work environment claim because Edwards did not allege any conduct by USS-POSCO that was “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of [his] employment and create an abusive working environment.” *Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson,*477 U.S. 57, 67, 106 S.Ct. 2399, 91 L.Ed.2d 49 (1986) (internal quotation omitted).

Edwards’ remaining contentions are also without merit.

AFFIRMED.

***

 This disposition is not appropriate for publication and may not be cited to or by the courts of this circuit except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.