alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 4 (Monday, January 7, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Page 64]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-28474]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER19-669-000]


Supplemental Notice That Initial Market-Based Rate Filing 
Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 Authorization; Northfield 
Mountain LLC

    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding of 
Northfield Mountain LLC's application for market-based rate authority, 
with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that such application includes 
a request for blanket authorization, under 18 CFR part 34, of future 
issuances of securities and assumptions of liability.
    Any person desiring to intervene or to protest should file with the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, 
DC 20426, in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the Commission's 
Rules of Practice and Procedure (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214). Anyone 
filing a motion to intervene or protest must serve a copy of that 
document on the Applicant.
    Notice is hereby given that the deadline for filing protests with 
regard to the applicant's request for blanket authorization, under 18 
CFR part 34, of future issuances of securities and assumptions of 
liability, is January 15, 2019.
    The Commission encourages electronic submission of protests and 
interventions in lieu of paper, using the FERC Online links at http://www.ferc.gov. To facilitate electronic service, persons with internet 
access who will eFile a document and/or be listed as a contact for an 
intervenor must create and validate an eRegistration account using the 
eRegistration link. Select the eFiling link to log on and submit the 
intervention or protests.
    Persons unable to file electronically should submit an original and 
5 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for electronic review in the 
Commission's Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an 
eSubscription link on the website that enables subscribers to receive 
email notification when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). 
For assistance with any FERC Online service, please email 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#aceae9feefe3c2c0c5c2c9ffd9dcdcc3ded8eccac9decf82cbc3da"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="b4f2f1e6f7fbdad8dddad1e7c1c4c4dbc6c0f4d2d1c6d79ad3dbc2">[email protected]</span></a> or call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, 
call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: December 26, 2018.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2018-28474 Filed 1-4-19; 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>
(November 16, 1951.)

#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Joseph Morgan, Appellant.

The matter is referred to the Legal Aid Society of Broome County, Binghamton, N. Y. Present — Foster, P. J., Heffernan, Brewster, Bergan and Coon, JJ.
§ 285.15 Obtaining documents. ( a ) Application forms, NVLAP handbooks, and other NVLAP documents and information may be obtained by contacting the NVLAP, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Mail Stop 2140, Gaithersburg, Maryland 20899-2140; phone: 301-975-4016; fax: 301-926-2884; e-mail: *nvlap@nist.gov .*
( b ) Copies of all ISO/IEC documents are available for purchase from the American National Standards Institute's eStandards Store at *http://webstore.ansi.org .* You may inspect copies of all applicable ISO/IEC documents at the National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, National Institute of Standards and Technology, 100 Bureau Drive, Room B119, Gaithersburg, MD. For access to the NIST campus, please contact NVLAP by phone at 301-975-4016 or by email at *NVLAP@nist.gov* to obtain instructions for visitor registration.
[66 FR 29221, May 30, 2001, as amended at 72 FR 36347, July 3, 2007; 85 FR 60061, Sept. 24, 2020]
Exhibit 31.2





Rule 13A-14(a)/ 15D-14(a) Certification


Of Principal Accounting Officer





I, Jonathan B. Lipschitz, certify that:





1.           I have reviewed this Report on Form 10-Q of VSB Bancorp, 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 registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;





4.           The registrant’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(e)) and internal control over financial reporting (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(f) and 15d-15(f)) for the registrant 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 registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to us by others within those entities, particularly during the period in which this report is being prepared;





b.           [Omitted in accordance with SEC Release Nos. 33-8238 and 34-47986]; and





c.           Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures as of the end of the period covered by this report based on such evaluation; and





d.           Disclosed in this report any change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting that occurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’s fourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting; and





5.           The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to the registrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board of directors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):





a.           All significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internal control over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and report financial information; and





b.           Any fraud, whether or not material, that involves management or other employees who have a significant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.





Date: August 10, 2010/s/ Jonathan B. LipschitzJonathan B. LipschitzVice President, Controller and Principal Accounting Officer
#### Hensley v. Clay et al.

February 3, 1948.

S. M. Ward, Judge.

Napier & Napier for appellant.

Courtney C. Wells for appellees.

Opinion of the Court by

Van Sant, Commissioner

—Affirming.

When appellant purchased Lot No. 7 in the Hillside Terrace Addition in the Walkertown Station Section of Hazard, appellees were the owners and in possession, and had built a storeroom on the rear, of Lot No. 8, which is adjacent to Lot No. 7. Appellant commenced the building "of a fence upon what he conceived to be the division line between the two lots. Since the fence was not located on the line appellees claim is the division, they brought this action to enjoin appellant from trespassing on their property. Upon submission the Chancellor concluded that the line appellant relied on was. the true division line; but since appellees had constructed a portion of their store building on a part of Lot No. 7 previous to appellant’s purchase of that lot, the Chancellor determined that appellant’s claim to that portion upon which the store building was constructed is champertous and violative of KRS 372.070, which, in so far as pertinent, provides:

> “Any sale or conveyance,’including those made un*483der execution, of any land, or the pretended right or title thereto, of which any other person has adverse possession at the time of the sale or conveyance, is void; **** * J?

Appellant has appealed from so much of the judgment as upholds the champerty Statute (HRS 372.070); and appellees have cross-appealed from the Chancellor’s decision in respect to the location of the division line between the two lots.

In addition to other evidence, each of the parties introduced a surveyor, the testimony of each of whom sustains the contention of the party by whom he was employed; consequently, the evidence is in hopeless conflict. It is impossible for us to conclude that the Chancellor erred in his decision; accordingly, we must affirm his judgment in respect to the location of the division line under the firmly established rule that, if we entertain no more than a doubt concerning the correctness of the chancellor’s decision, we will affirm the judgment. Cook et al. v. Hagan et al., 301 Ky. 346, 192 S. W. 2d 97.

The facts of the case, as related, plainly entitle appellees to rely on the champerty Statute. The possession was open, notorious, and. to a well defined line, viz., that part of Lot No. 7 upon which appellees’ building encroached. The very purpose of the Statute, which is a reassertion of the common law, is to prohibit the “* * * purchasing of a suit, or right of suing: a practice so much abhorred by our law that it is one main reason why a *chose*in action, or thing of which one hath the right but not the possession, is not assignable at common law; because no man should purchase any pretence to sue in another’s right.” Commentaries on the Laws of England, by Sir William Blackstone, Book IV, Chapter 10, p. 136.

The judgment is affirmed on both the appeal and cross-appeal.
Home > NRC Library > ADAMS Public Documents

# SECY-15-0105:  Plan for Integrated Prioritization and Re-baselining of Agency Activities

Accession Number: ML15230A313

Date Released: Thursday, August 27, 2015

Package Contents

The following links on this page are to Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) files. To obtain a free viewer for displaying this format, see our Plugins, Viewers, and Other Tools.
    - ML15230A310 - SECY-15-0105:  Plan for Integrated Prioritization and Rebaselining of Agency Activities (4 page(s), 8/24/2015)
    - ML15230A311 - SECY-15-0105:  Enclosure - Rebaseline Project Plan, August 17, 2015 (8 page(s), 8/24/2015)

Privacy PolicySite Disclaimer
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 218 (Friday, November 12, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 65381]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-25218]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[DA 04-3475, MM Docket No. 99-277, RM-9666]


Digital Television Broadcast Service; Corpus Christi, TX

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Commission, by this document, denies the petitions for 
reconsideration filed by Channel 7 of Corpus Christi, Inc. and Minerva 
L. Lopez of the Report and Order, which substituted DTV channel 8 for 
DTV channel 47 at Corpus Christi, Texas. See 68 FR 68254, December 8, 
2003. With this action, this proceeding is terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Alan Aronowitz, Media Bureau, (202) 
418-1600.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's 
Memorandum Opinion and Order, MM Docket No. 99-277, adopted October 28, 
2004, and released November 5, 2004. The full text of this document is 
available for public inspection and copying during regular business 
hours in the FCC Reference Information Center, Portals II, 445 12th 
Street, SW., Room CY-A257, Washington, DC. This document may also be 
purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and 
Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC, 
20554, telephone 301-816-2820, facsimile 301-816-0169, or via e-mail 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#a9c3c6dac1c0dbe9ccdbc6c5da87cac6c4"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="660c09150e0f14260314090a154805090b">[email protected]</span></a>.
    This document does not contain [new or modified] information 
collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
(PRA), Pub. L. 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any 
new or modified ``information collection burden for small business 
concerns with fewer than 25 employees,'' pursuant to the Small Business 
Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Pub. L. 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(4).
    The Commission will send a copy of this Memorandum Opinion & Order 
in a report to be sent to Congress and the General Accountability 
Office pursuant to the Congressional Review Act, see 5 U.S.C. 
801(a)(1)(A) because there are no rules attached. This was a petition 
for reconsideration that was denied.

List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

    Digital television broadcasting, Television.

Federal Communications Commission.
Clay C. Pendarvis,
Associate Chief, Video Division, Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 04-25218 Filed 11-10-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>
#### Samuel Newfield, as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Joy Kraft Creations, Inc., Bankrupt, Respondent, v. Sylvia Schub et al., Appellants.

No opinion. Present — Peck, P. J., Glennon, Callahan, Van Voorhis and Shientag, JJ.
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIRST DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT HOUSTON

ORDER ON MOTION

November 7, 2008 Revision

Cause number: 01-15-00487-CR

Style: Fredis Mauricio Flores v. The State of Texas

Date motion filed*: August 28, 2015

Type of motions: Motion to Withdraw as Counsel

Parties filing motions: Appellant’s Appointed Counsel Janet Celeste Carter-Blackburn

Document to be filed: N/A

Is appeal accelerated? No.

Ordered that motion is:

 Granted

 Denied

 Dismissed (e.g., want of jurisdiction, moot)

 Other: _____________________________________ 

Appellant’s appointed counsel’s motion to withdraw as counsel is granted because it 

complies with Rule 6.5(d) and this Court already granted new counsel Allen C. Isbell’s 

motion to substitute on August 27, 2015. See TEX. R. APP. P. 6.5(b), (d). Accordingly,

the Clerk of this Court is directed to remove Janet Celeste Carter-Blackburn as attorney 

for appellant. 

Judge’s signature: /s/ Evelyn V. Keyes

  Acting individually 

Date: September 10, 2015
No. IV-12-052

Contact: Victor Dricks (817) 200-1128

 Lara Uselding (817) 200-1519

 

 Nov. 29, 2012

E-Mail: OPA4.Resource@nrc.gov

NRC TO MEET WITH WOLF CREEK NUCLEAR OPERATING CO. 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will meet with officials from the Wolf Creek 

Nuclear Operating Co. to discuss the Wolf Creek nuclear power plant located near Burlington, 

Kan. 

The meeting will be held on Dec. 10 at 3 p.m. in NRC’s Region IV offices at 

1600 E. Lamar in Arlington, Texas. The public is invited to observe the meeting and will have an 

opportunity to ask questions after the business portion of the meeting.

 NRC staff and Wolf Creek officials are meeting to discuss the company’s actions to 

address performance issues that were identified in the NRC’s 2012 mid-cycle assessment letter 

issued on September 4. Specifically, the company will address performance issues in the areas of 

problem identification and resolution and human performance.

A phone bridge is available to members of the public by calling 1-800-952-9677 and 

asking to be connected to the meeting. 

 The NRC’s mid-cycle assessment letter to Wolf Creek officials, which addresses the 

performance of the plant from July 2011 to June 2012, is available on the NRC website at:

http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/LETTERS/wc_2012q2.pdf .

Current performance information for Wolf Creek is also available on the

NRC website at: http://www.nrc.gov/NRR/OVERSIGHT/ASSESS/WC/wc_chart.html .

###

NOTE: Anyone wishing to take photos or use a camera to record any portion of a NRC meeting should 

contact the Office of Public Affairs beforehand.

News releases are available through a free Listserv subscription or by clicking on the EMAIL UPDATES 

link on the NRC homepage (www.nrc.gov). E-mail notifications are sent to subscribers when news releases are 

posted to NRC's website. For the latest news, follow the NRC on www.twitter.com/NRCgov.

NRC NEWS

U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION

Office of Public Affairs Region IV

 1600 E. Lamar Blvd.

 Arlington, TX 76011 - 4125

Site: www.nrc.gov

Blog: http://public-blog.nrc-gateway.gov
No: II-14-015 March 31, 2014

CONTACT: Roger Hannah 404-997-4417 

Joey Ledford 404-997-4416 

NRC Schedules April 9 Meeting in Richland to

Discuss AREVA Fuel Facility 

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff has scheduled a public meeting in Richland, Wash., 

for April 9 to discuss the agency’s recent review of AREVA NP Inc.’s nuclear fuel manufacturing 

facility located in Richland. 

The meeting is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. in the Gallery of the Richland Public Library, 

955 Northgate Drive in Richland. The NRC staff will discuss with company officials the results of the 

agency’s review of safety performance at the plant from Jan. 1, 2012 through Dec. 31, 2013. The 

discussion will include the areas of safety operations, radiological controls, facility support and other 

areas.

“Although we only do this overall review of the facility’s performance every two years, our 

inspectors make frequent trips to the facility and have ongoing discussions with the company’s 

management,” said NRC Region II Administrator Victor McCree. “Those interactions help ensure safe 

facility operation that protects employees, people living nearby and the environment.” 

In its review, the NRC found no areas needing improvement, so the agency will continue the 

normal level of inspection required for a facility of this type. 

The meeting will be open to the public and media, and NRC officials will be available to answer 

questions after the business portion of the meeting.

A copy of the NRC review is available on the NRC website.
Exhibit 8.01



Subsidiaries of Linx S.A.



The following are the subsidiaries of Linx S.A. as of the date
of this annual report:



|Subsidiary                                                |  | Jurisdiction
of Organization
|--------------------------------------------------------- |  | ----------------------------
|Linx Sistemas e Consultoria Ltda.                         |  | Brazil                      
|Linx Telecomunicações Ltda.                               |  | Brazil                      
|Napse S.R.L.                                              |  | Argentina                   
|Sociedad Ingenería de Sistemas Napse IT de Chile Limitada |  | Chile                       
|Synthesis I.T. Peru S.R.L.                                |  | Peru                        
|Synthesis Holding LLC                                     |  | United States               
|Synthesis US LLC                                          |  | United States               
|Synthesis IT de Mexico S. R.L.                            |  | Mexico                      
|Retail Americas S. de R.L. de C.V.                        |  | Mexico                      
|Linx Pay Meios de Pagamentos Ltda.                        |  | Brazil                      
|Safira Serviços Digitais Ltda.                            |  | Brazil                      
|Ametista Serviços Digitais Ltda.                          |  | Brazil                      
|Diamante Serviços Digitais Ltda.                          |  | Brazil                      
|Esmeralda Serviços Digitais Ltda.                         |  | Brazil                      
|Hiper Software S.A.                                       |  | Brazil                      
|SetaDigital Sistemas Gerenciais Ltda.                     |  | Brazil                      
|RRA Ferreira Ltda.                                        |  | Brazil
**
**Exhibit 12.2**

**Certification by the Principal Financial Officer**

**Pursuant to Section 302 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002**

I, Cliff Kin Wang Li, certify that: 

1.    I have reviewed this annual report on Form 20-F of AMTD InternationalInc.; 

2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not contain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit tostate 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, fairlypresent in all material respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flows of the company as of, and for, the periods presented in this report; 

4.    The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for the company and have: 

(a)    Designed such disclosure controls and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures to be designedunder our supervision, to ensure that material information relating to the company, 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)    [reserved] 

(c)    Evaluated the effectiveness of the company’s disclosure controls and procedures and presented in this reportour 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 

(d)    Disclosed in this report any change in the company’s internal control over financial reporting that occurredduring the period covered by the annual report that has materially affected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the company’s internal control over financial reporting; and 

5.    The company’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on our most recent evaluation of internalcontrol over financial reporting, to the company’s auditors and the audit committee of the company’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 financialreporting which are reasonably likely to adversely affect the company’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 thecompany’s internal control over financial reporting. 

Date: April 30, 2020 

 
By: 
  /s/ Cliff Kin Wang Li
   Name: Cliff Kin Wang Li   Title: Chief Financial Officer
 
**