alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 230 (Wednesday, December 1, 2004)]
[Notices]
[Pages 69924-69925]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-26573]


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

FARM CREDIT SYSTEM INSURANCE CORPORATION


Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board; Regular Meeting

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given of the regular meeting of the Farm 
Credit System Insurance Corporation Board (Board).

DATE AND TIME: The meeting of the Board will be held at the offices of 
the Farm Credit Administration in McLean, Virginia, on December 2, 
2004, from 9 a.m. until such time as the Board concludes its business.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jeanette C. Brinkley, Secretary to the 
Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board, (703) 883-4009, TTY 
(703) 883-4056.

ADDRESSES: Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation, 1501 Farm Credit 
Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Parts of this meeting of the Board will be 
open to the public (limited space available), and parts will be closed 
to the public. In order to increase the accessibility to Board 
meetings, persons requiring assistance should make arrangements in 
advance. The matters to be considered at the meeting are:

Closed Session

    <bullet> Report on System Performance

Open Session

Approval of Minutes

    <bullet> September 16, 2004 (Regular Meeting)

Business Reports

    <bullet> Financials
    <bullet> Report on Insured Obligations
    <bullet> Quarterly Report on Annual Performance Plan

[[Page 69925]]

New Business

    <bullet> Premium Rates for 2005

Closed Session

    <bullet> Proposed Audit Plan

    Dated: November 29, 2004.
Jeanette C. Brinkley,
Secretary, Farm Credit System Insurance Corporation Board.
[FR Doc. 04-26573 Filed 11-29-04; 1:26 pm]
BILLING CODE 6710-01-P
### §1489. Transfer of excess funds out of Rural Housing Insurance Fund

Any sums in the Rural Housing Insurance Fund which the Secretary determines are in excess of amounts needed to meet the obligations and carry out the purposes of such Fund shall be returned to miscellaneous receipts of the Treasury.

(July 15, 1949, ch. 338, title V, §519, as added Pub. L. 89–117, title X, §1006, Aug. 10, 1965, 79 Stat. 501; amended Pub. L. 91–152, title IV, §413(e)(4), Dec. 24, 1969, 83 Stat. 399.)

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1969—Pub. L. 91–152 struck out applicability of provisions to Rural Housing Direct Loan Account.
#### §§ 23.24-23.40 [Reserved]
January 7, 2016 

The Honorable Nita M. Lowey 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Congresswoman Lowey: 

 On behalf of the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC), I am responding to your 

letter of December 11, 2015, expressing continuing interest in having an independent risk 

assessment conducted on the proposed gas pipeline project in the vicinity of the Indian Point 

Energy Center and urging us to support rehearing requests on the project before the Federal 

Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC). 

 Having personally read through a substantial volume of correspondence and met with a 

wide range of stakeholders, I recognize that there remain some significant differences of opinion 

regarding how the pipeline project may impact the safety of Indian Point. However, I remain 

confident that the NRC staff has conducted thorough, independent analysis of the impacts of 

this project on the Indian Point facility in determining that a potential rupture of the proposed 

pipeline would pose no threat to the safe operation or the safe shutdown of the plant, and I am 

satisfied that an additional risk assessment would not provide significant insight beyond those 

gained from the analysis already completed by the NRC. 

 Let me continue to assure you that the agency has thoroughly reviewed various 

concerns that have arisen regarding the Indian Point facility, including concerns about the 

proposed gas pipeline. As you may know, the licensee, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc. 

(Entergy), conducted a hazard analysis of the proposed pipeline, and the NRC staff conducted 

its own confirmatory analysis of the hazards posed by the pipeline. Both of those analyses 

concluded that the proposed pipeline would not jeopardize safe operation or shutdown of Indian 

Point Units 2 and 3. 

Regarding requests for rehearing before FERC, I understand that FERC has received 

and is considering numerous stakeholder requests for reconsideration or rehearing of its 

decision on various issues, including the request, such as yours, for an independent analysis. 

Those requests are pending before FERC which has independent regulatory authority to decide 

whether to consider its earlier determinations. 

 I appreciate your input on this important matter. If you need additional information, 

please contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional Affairs, at (301) 

415-1776. 

Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

________________ _________________ ANTIONE DIRAY JOHNSON, Petitioner - Appellant,

v. ROBERT PATTON, Respondent - Appellee. No. 17-6158 (D.C. No. 5:17- CV-00346-C) (W.D. Okla.)

________________ _________________ ORDER DENYING CERTIFIC ATE OF APPEALABILITY *

________________ _________________ Before LUCERO , MATHESON , and PHILLIPS , Circuit Judges.

________________ _________________ Antione Diray Johnson, an Oklahoma st ate prisoner proceeding pro se, seeks a certificate of appealability (COA) to appeal the district court’s dismissal of his unauthorized second or successi ve 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. He also seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP). We deny a COA and IFP and dismiss the appeal. Johnson was convicted of armed robbery, and his convictions and sentences were affirmed by the Oklahoma Court of Crim inal Appeals. His applications for post-conviction relief in the state courts were unsuccessful. His previous § 2254 petition

* This order is not binding precedent except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. FILED United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### October 11, 2017
Elisabeth A. Shumaker Clerk of Court2 was denied by the district court, and this court denied his application for a COA. Johnson v. Patton , 634 F. App’x 653, 65 5 (10th Cir. 2015). Johnson’s current § 2254 petition was dismissed for lack of juri sdiction because it was successive. See In re Cline , 531 F.3d 1249, 1251 (10th Cir. 2008) (per curiam) (“A district court does not have jurisdiction to address the merits of a sec ond or successive . . . § 2254 claim until this court has granted the required authorization.”). To obtain a COA, Johnso n must show “that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition st ates a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason woul d find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.” Slack v. McDaniel , 529 U.S. 473, 484 (2000). Johnson makes no argument as to how the district court erred in dismissing his unauthorized second or succe ssive § 2254 petition for lack of jurisdiction. Because reasonable jurists could not debate that the di strict court was correct in its procedural ruling dismissing the petition, we deny a COA and dismiss this matter. Accordingly, we deny Johnson’s request fo r a COA. We also deny his motion to proceed IFP.

Entered for the Court

ELISABETH A. SHUMAKER, Clerk
Exhibit 24.1


                          Consent of Deloitte & Touche

       We consent to the incorporation by reference in this Registration
Statement of The Coastal Corporation on Form S-8 relating to The Coastal
Corporation Deferred Compensation Plan for Directors and The Coastal Corporation
1997 Directors Stock Plan (i) our report dated February 8, 2000, appearing in
the Annual Report on Form 10-K/A of The Coastal Corporation for the year ended
December 31, 1999, and (ii) to the reference to us under the heading "Experts"
in this Registration Statement.



/S/ DELOITTE & TOUCHE
-------------------------------
DELOITTE & TOUCHE LLP


Houston, Texas
August 24, 2000
EXHIBIT 32



CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER AND

CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350



In connection with the Quarterly Report on Form 10-QSB for the period ended September 30, 2005 (the Form 10-QSB) of Surrey Bancorp (the Company), we, Edward C. Ashby, III, Chief Executive
Officer of the Company, and Mark H.Towe, Chief Financial Officer of the Company, hereby certify pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to our knowledge:



(a) the Form 10-QSB fully complies with the requirements of
Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and



(b) the information contained in the Form 10-QSB fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company as of and for the periods presented in the Form 10-QSB.



|    |  |                                                |  |                        
|--- |  | ---------------------------------------------- |  | -----------------------
|By: |  | /s/ Edward C. Ashby, III                       |  | Date: November 10, 2005
|    |  | Edward C. Ashby, III.                          |  |                        
|    |  | President and Chief Executive Officer          |  |                        
|    |  |                                               
|By: |  | /s/ Mark H. Towe                               |  | Date: November 10, 2005
|    |  | Mark H. Towe                                   |  |                        
|    |  | Sr. Vice-President and Chief Financial Officer |  |                        



26
# Az Európai Unió C 391/2020

| | ISSN 1977-0979 |
| --- | --- |
| Az Európai Unió
  Hivatalos Lapja | C 391 |
| | |
| Magyar nyelvű kiadás | Tájékoztatások és közlemények | 63. évfolyam2020. november 16. |

ISSN 1977-0979

Az Európai Unió

Hivatalos Lapja

C 391

Magyar nyelvű kiadás

Tájékoztatások és közlemények

63. évfolyam2020. november 16.

---

| Tartalom | Oldal |
| --- | --- |
| | IV   Tájékoztatások |
| | AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ INTÉZMÉNYEITŐL, SZERVEITŐL, HIVATALAITÓL ÉS ÜGYNÖKSÉGEITŐL SZÁRMAZÓ TÁJÉKOZTATÁSOK |
| | Tanács |
| 2020/C 391/01 | A Tanács határozata (2020. november 10.) az Európai Unió Szellemi Tulajdoni Hivatala fellebbezési tanácsai elnökének kinevezéséről | 1 |

Tartalom

Oldal

IV   Tájékoztatások

AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ INTÉZMÉNYEITŐL, SZERVEITŐL, HIVATALAITÓL ÉS ÜGYNÖKSÉGEITŐL SZÁRMAZÓ TÁJÉKOZTATÁSOK

Tanács

2020/C 391/01

A Tanács határozata (2020. november 10.) az Európai Unió Szellemi Tulajdoni Hivatala fellebbezési tanácsai elnökének kinevezéséről

1

---

| HU | |
| --- | --- |

HU

---

IV Tájékoztatások

AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ INTÉZMÉNYEITŐL, SZERVEITŐL, HIVATALAITÓL ÉS ÜGYNÖKSÉGEITŐL SZÁRMAZÓ TÁJÉKOZTATÁSOK

Tanács

| 2020.11.16. | HU | Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja | C 391/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

2020.11.16.

HU

Az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapja

C 391/1

---

A TANÁCS HATÁROZATA

(2020. november 10.)

az Európai Unió Szellemi Tulajdoni Hivatala fellebbezési tanácsai elnökének kinevezéséről

(2020/C 391/01)

AZ EURÓPAI UNIÓ TANÁCSA,

tekintettel az Európai Unió működéséről szóló szerződésre,

tekintettel az európai uniós védjegyről szóló, 2017. június 14-i (EU) 2017/1001 európai parlamenti és tanácsi rendeletre (1), és különösen annak 166. cikke (1) bekezdésére,

mivel:

A Tanács 2020. június 8-án az Európai Unió Szellemi Tulajdoni Hivatala (EUIPO) igazgatótanácsától kézhez kapta az EUIPO fellebbezési tanácsai elnöki tisztségének betöltésére javasolt jelöltek listáját,

ELFOGADTA EZT A HATÁROZATOT:

1. cikk

(1)   A Tanács kinevezi João Nuno MAROCO AMARAL NEGRÃO-t (születési helye és ideje: Lisszabon, Portugália, 1970. november 2.) az Európai Unió Szellemi Tulajdoni Hivatala (EUIPO) fellebbezési tanácsai elnökévé, ötéves hivatali időre.

(2)   Az (1) bekezdésben említett ötéves hivatali idő kezdőnapját az EUIPO igazgatótanácsa határozza meg.

2. cikk

Ez a határozat az Európai Unió Hivatalos Lapjában való kihirdetésének napján lép hatályba.

Kelt Brüsszelben, 2020. november 10-én.

a Tanács részéről

az elnök

M. ROTH

---

(1)  HL L 154., 2017.6.16., 1. o.

1

---
Subpart 515.1 - Source Selection Processes

and Techniques

Parent topic: Part 515 - Contracting by Negotiation

515.101-2 Lowest price technically acceptable source

selection process.

(a) General. Lowest Price Technically Acceptable is a source selection process that may be useful in

acquisitions in which the Government, or the market, does not benefit from technical tradeoffs. A

contracting officer should not use the lowest price technically acceptable source selection process

without doing the following:

(1) Documentation requirements. The contracting officer shall include documentation as to why the

lowest price technically acceptable source selection is being utilized. The rationale for why this

method of source selection is being utilized should be clearly described in the acquisition plan (see

FAR 7.105(b)(4)). The rationale should include a description as to why utilizing this methodology will

not harm the Government.

(b) Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). Contracting officers shall ensure that FPDS is

properly coded to include if lowest price technically acceptable is the source selection process used.
# Subpart 3430.201—CAS Program Requirements

**Parent topic:**PART 3430—COST ACCOUNTING STANDARDS ADMINISTRATION

## 3430.201 Contract requirements.

## 3430.201-5 Waiver.

(a) The Senior Procurement Executive (SPE) is the head of the agency for the purposes of FAR 30.201–5(a) and (b).
#### William Sumner Smith, Defendant in Error, v. Harry Rosenwasser et al., trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, Plaintiffs in Error.

Gen. No. 20,109.

(Not to be reported in full.)

Error to the Municipal Court of Chicago; the Hon. Joseph S. La But, Judge, presiding. Heard in the Branch Appellate Court at the March term, 1914.

Reversed and remanded.

Opinion filed January 5, 1915.

Statement of the Case.

Attachment suit by William Sumner,Smith against Harry Rosenwasser and Morris Rosenwasser, copartners, trading as Rosenwasser Brothers, in New York City, the plaintiff claiming that they owed him $156.96. Tucker & Hagen, a corporation, was served as garnishee. Subsequently the defendants appeared and entered into a recognizance, whereupon the attachment was released. Plaintiff’s claim was based upon the refusal of defendants to deliver him certain sandals, resulting in a loss' of profits because of his inability to *96resell the sandals. It appeared that the defendants refused to deliver the goods unless the plaintiff paid cash or procured somebody to guarantee his account for him, though they had contracted to allow him a certain time for payment. The case was tried beforé the court without a jury, resulting in a judgment against defendants for $156.96, whereupon this writ of error was brought.

Abstract of the Decision.

1. Sales, § *381*
      ***
      *—when buyer bound to reduce damages.*Where a seller breached a contract whereby sandals were to be delivered to a purchaser, but the purchaser was notified of the refusal to deliver the goods unless he paid cash or obtained somebody to guarantee his account, and such purchaser could have obtained similar sandals and reduced his damages, it was the duty of such purchaser to so reduce his damages, and only nominal damages were recoverable.

2. Sales, § *376*—what measure of damages for breach of contract.*In an action for breach of contract in failing to deliver chattels or other commodities, where the purchase price has not been paid, the measure of damages is the difference between the contract price and the market value of the property at the time stipulated for delivery.

Culver, Andrews & King, for plaintiffs in error.

Willis Melville, for defendant in error; Ernest C. Reniff, of counsel.

See Illinois Notes Digest, Vols. XI to XV, and Cumulative Quarterly, same topic and section number.

Mr. Justice Gridley

delivered the opinion of the court.
No: III-16-008 May 10, 2016

CONTACT: Viktoria Mitlyng 630-829-9662

 Prema Chandrathil 630-829-9663

NRC to Hold Public Meeting May 26 to Discuss Performance of 

Monticello Nuclear Power Plant

The Nuclear Regulatory Commission will hold a public meeting on May 26 to discuss the 

agency’s annual review of safety performance of the Monticello nuclear power plant. The plant is 

operated by Northern States Power Co.-Minnesota, and is located in Monticello, Minn., approximately 

30 miles northwest of Minneapolis.

The meeting is scheduled for 6-8 p.m. CDT at the Albertville Community Center, 

5959 Main Ave. NE, in Albertville. The NRC will present its assessment of the plant’s 2015 

performance, talk about agency activities and be available to respond to questions or comments from 

the public.

“NRC inspectors who work at the plant and NRC staff from our regional office in Lisle, Ill., are 

looking forward to speaking with members of the public about the performance of the Monticello plant 

and other topics related to nuclear safety,” said NRC Region III Administrator Cynthia D. Pederson. 

“We hold these meetings every year to share information about the activities we conduct to ensure the 

plant operates safely and foster an open dialogue with interested members of the public.”

The NRC’s performance action matrix reflects overall plant performance and agency response. 

There are five columns in the matrix with Column 1 requiring a baseline level of inspection. A move up 

to another column results in an increased level of NRC oversight and inspections. Performance 

indicators are statistical measurements of plant and equipment performance.

Overall, the Monticello facility operated safely last year. All performance indicators were 

“green” or low safety significance. A security finding was issued at the end of 2014. This finding, in 

addition to a previously identified yellow finding, would have resulted in a move to Column 4 and a 

significant increase in inspection. However, the NRC determined the plant’s performance did not 

warrant this move and issued a deviation memo to the plant which placed it in Column 2. 

The deviation memo noted that human performance issues continued to occur and needed to be 

addressed. As a result, the plant committed to perform an independent safety culture assessment with a 

focus on human performance. The deviation will remain open until the NRC completes its assessment 

of the plant’s safety culture evaluation. 
Page | 2

The plant moved to Column 1 by the end of 2015. While the details on the security finding are 

not publically available, the plant corrected the issue and the NRC conducted a follow-up inspection to 

verify the plant’s actions. 

Monticello will also continue to receive the detailed routine inspections conducted at all nuclear 

power plants. Routine inspections are performed by two NRC Resident Inspectors assigned to the plant 

and by inspection specialists from the Region III Office in Lisle and the agency’s headquarters in 

Rockville, Md. 

The NRC’s 2015 assessment letter and current performance information is available on the

NRC website.
May 23, 2016 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Committee on Energy 

 and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

On behalf of the Commission, I am transmitting the April 2016 monthly status report on 

the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) activities and use of unobligated carryover 

funds appropriated from the Nuclear Waste Fund. This report describes NRC activities in April 

2016 to address the remand by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 

the case In re Aiken County regarding the licensing process for the U.S. Department of Energy’s 

Yucca Mountain license application. 

 Please feel free to contact me or Eugene Dacus, Director of the Office of Congressional 

Affairs, at 301-415-1776, if you have questions or need more information. 

 Sincerely, 

/RA/ 

 Stephen G. Burns 

Enclosure: 

As stated 

cc: Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. 

 
Identical letter sent to: 

The Honorable Fred Upton 

Chairman, Committee on Energy 

 and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Frank Pallone, Jr. 

The Honorable John Shimkus 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Environment 

 and the Economy 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Paul Tonko 

The Honorable James Inhofe 

Chairman, Committee on Environment 

 and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Barbara Boxer 

The Honorable Shelley Moore Capito 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Clean Air 

 and Nuclear Safety 

Committee on Environment 

 and Public Works 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Thomas R. Carper 

The Honorable Ed Whitfield 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Power 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Bobby L. Rush 

The Honorable Harold Rogers 

Chairman, Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Nita Lowey 

The Honorable Mike Simpson 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Water Development 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

cc: Representative Marcy Kaptur 

The Honorable Lamar Alexander 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy 

 and Water Development 

Committee on Appropriations 

United States Senate 

Washington, DC 20510 

cc: Senator Dianne Feinstein
[Civil No. 294.]

#### JOHN HILL et al., Appellees, v. H. C. HERRICK et al., Appellants.

APPEAL from the District Court of the First Judicial District in and for the County of Cochise. William H. Barnes, Judge.

Dismissed.

George G. Berry, for Appellants.

Goodrich & Smith, for Appellees.

(Filed January 24, 1891.)

PER CURIAM.

Upon motion: for the reasons stated in *Reilly*v. *Crowley, ante,*p. 286, 29 Pac. 14, and upon the authority of that case, this appeal is dismissed, and there will be judgment accordingly.
#### In the Matter of AIU Insurance Company, Appellant, v Franklin Holguin et al., Respondents, et al., Respondent.

[820 NYS2d 802]

Order, Supreme Court, Bronx County (Norma Ruiz, J), entered December 9, 2004, which denied petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, unanimously affirmed, with costs.

Petitioner’s motion to stay arbitration, which was not properly filed with the court until more than one year after the demand for arbitration was served, and indeed more than two months after a decision in the arbitration had been rendered, was untimely *(see*CPLR 7503; *Matter of Blamowski [Munson Transp.],*91 NY2d 190, 195 [1997]). Concur — Tom, J.P., Andrias, Friedman, Marlow and Gonzalez, JJ.
#### P.S. Marcato Elevator Co., Inc., Appellant, v J.P. Morgan Chase Bank & Co., Respondent.

[819 NYS2d 665]

Appeal from order, Supreme Court, New York County (Helen E. Freedman, J.), entered April 4, 2005, unanimously discontinued in accordance with the terms of the stipulation of the parties hereto. No opinion. Order filed. Concur — Saxe, J.E, Sweeny, McGuire and Malone, JJ.