alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Sco tt D

. Ba tes Cor p o r a t

e V ice Pr es id e nt General Couns e l a nd Sec r e t

a r

y sco t t. ba t es@r h ee m.c o m

Vi a Email U.S. Dep a rtm e nt o f En e rgy Em a il : ex p a lt ecomffiuni cation s@ h q. d oe.gov Re: Ex Part e C o mmunic ati o n D

ea r Sir s : Dir ec t P h o n e: Prim ary Fax :

April 22 , 2010 77 0

- 3 51 -30 5 0 770- 3 51- 30 92

On April 20, 2010, Scott Bates , C o rpor a t e Vi ce President and Gen e ral C o un se l , a nd K a re n Meyers, D

ir ec t o r of Go vernment Affairs, b o th o f th e Rh ee m Ma nufacturing Compan y ("Rh ee m") , acc ompanied b y th eir co un se l , Bill Ana y a of Al s t o n & Bird, LLP, met with Department of En e r gy ("DOE " ) off icials S co tt Ha rri s, Ge ne r a l Couns el, Maur ee n Mc L a u ghlin , Sp eci a l Ass is tant to th e G e n e r al Co un se l , a nd St ephani e Wein er , S pec ia l Ass i s tant , Offic e o f th e Ge ne ra l Co un se l. A

t th e me eting , Rh ee m appl a ud e d th e lea d e rs hip being provid e d by th e Offi ce o f th e Ge ner al Co un se l ac ross a broad portfolio o f p oli c ies a nd initi a tiv es . Particip a nt s di sc u sse d Rh ee m 's e n gage ment as a comp a ny that brings a broad ran ge o f pro du c t s, including air condition e r s, furn aces , wa t er h ea t er s, p oo l hea t e rs , a nd specialty pro du c t s, t o ma rk e t w hi c h a r e important t o the publi c a nd o ur nati o nal e ne rgy e ffici en cy goa l s . Al so di sc u ss ed, w a s th e co n se n s u s ag r ee me nt on new Fed e ra l mlllllnum e n e rgy effi c iency s t a nda rd s deve lo p e d jointly b y environm e nt a l a dv oca t es a nd the furn ace , air co nditi o nin g, a nd h e at pump indu s tr y p a rticipant s . Specific ally , it w as di sc u sse d th a t th e objectiv e of the co n se n s u s ag r ee me nt was to f a cilit a t e th e s wift adoption of new s t a nd a rd s t o pro mote c o nservatiou on a r e gi o n a l b as is th a t will al s o e n a bl e bu s in e s se s to migrate their pr o du c t lin es in a pre dictable mann e r. It wa s di sc u sse d th a t a c hi eviug reso luti o n o n r eg ional enfor c em e nt i ss u e s will b e a n imp o rtant issue goin g f o rw a rd

. A

d d iti o n a ll y, it wa s di sc u ssed th a t co n s is t e nt with th e Departm e n t's e nf o r ce me nt a nd s afe ty ob

j ec ti ves that Fe d e r al in centi v e s o r r eb a t es f o r t he in s tallation of ne wer , more e n e rgy eff icie nt a ppli a nce s e n s ur e th a t in s t all er s c ompl y with in s t a ll ati o n co d es a nd s t a nd a rd s .

C

c : Mr. Bill A naya Mr. Edward Britan Mr. Bob Jones VelY trul y yo ur s,

# ~~<-J~ Scott D. Bates Corpor a te V ice Pres id e nt , Ge n er a l Coun se l a nd S ec re t a lY

Ah ee rn Manufacturing C ompany 1100 Abernathy Road, Suite 1400 A

t tanta , GA 30328 770-35 1-3000 770-351-3003 Fax \'J\'I \'I
. rlleem.com
### §§29 to 38. Omitted

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Codification

Sections 29 to 38, relating to Territory of Alaska, were omitted in view of admission of Alaska into the Union.

Section 29, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §§22, 23, 31 Stat. 329, related to official bonds of notaries public.

Section 30, acts June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §32, 31 Stat. 333; Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1029, prescribed fee for issuance of notary public commission.

Section 31, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §18, 31 Stat. 328, related to duties of notaries public.

Section 32, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §19, 31 Stat. 329, provided for protests of bills or notes by notaries public.

Section 33, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §24, 31 Stat. 329, related to liability of notaries public for misconduct or neglect.

Section 34, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §20, 31 Stat. 329, directed notaries to deposit their records with district court on resignation, removal or death.

Section 35, act June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §21, 31 Stat. 329, related to duty of clerk in safe-keeping records deposited.

Section 35a, acts Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 480, §1, 53 Stat. 1219; Dec. 11, 1945, ch. 563, 59 Stat. 605, empowered postmasters to act as notaries public.

Section 35b, acts Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 480, §2, 53 Stat. 1219; Dec. 11, 1945, ch. 563, 59 Stat. 606, provided for signature and seal of postmasters acting as notaries.

Section 35c, act Aug. 5, 1939, ch. 480, §3, 53 Stat. 1219, related to fees of postmasters acting as notaries.

Section 36, acts June 6, 1900, ch. 786, §32, 31 Stat. 333; Dec. 16, 1930, ch. 14, §1, 46 Stat. 1029, prescribed fee for certificates issued to members of bar authorizing them to practice law.

Section 37, act June 11, 1896, ch. 420, §1, 29 Stat. 413, empowered Secretary of the Treasury to fix rates of dockage and wharfage to be paid for use of wharf at Sitka.

Section 38, act Jan. 3, 1923, ch. 22, 42 Stat. 1106, related to repairs to wharf at Sitka.
#### Melvin Lesser, Appellant, v Brookside Hotel, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 1.) Evelyn Lesser, Appellant, v Brookside Hotel, Inc., et al., Respondents. (Action No. 2.)

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, entered February 11, 1976 in Ulster County, upon a verdict rendered at a Trial Term in favor of plaintiffs. On this appeal plaintiffs seek a reversal and new trial limited solely to the issue of damages upon the ground that the verdict as rendered is grossly inadequate. There must be an *affirmance.*The bulk of plaintiffs’ claim for damages was based on loss of earnings, pain and suffering. Presented essentially with questions of credibility, the jury plainly chose not to accept all the contentions offered by plaintiffs on those subjects and it had the perfect right to do so. After examining the record, we cannot say the result is such that would shock the conscience of the court *(Hallenbeck v Caiazzo,*41 AD2d 789; *Shapp v Simmons,*31 AD2d 666). Judgment affirmed, without costs. Greenblott, J. P., Kane, Larkin, Mikoll and Herlihy, JJ., concur.
#### § 574.410 Capacity.

The grantee shall ensure that any project sponsor with which the grantee contracts to carry out an activity under this part has the capacity and capability to effectively administer the activity.
United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

________________

No. 03-2521

________________

United States of America,

Appellee,

v.

Christopher Lee Morris,

Appellant.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

Appeal from the United States

District Court for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

 [UNPUBLISHED]

________________

Submitted: April 13, 2004

 Filed: April 19, 2004

________________

Before WOLLMAN, HANSEN, and BYE, Circuit Judges.

________________

PER CURIAM.

Pursuant to a written plea agreement, Christopher Lee Morris pleaded guilty

to conspiring to possess more than fifty grams of cocaine base with intent to

distribute, in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 846 (2000). The plea agreement contained the

following appeal waiver:

The defendant has been fully apprised of his right to appeal by his

attorney and fully understands that he has a right to appeal his sentence

under Title 18, United States Code, Section 3742. In the event the

District Court accepts the plea agreement, the defendant understands
1

 The Honorable Stephen N. Limbaugh, United States District Judge for the

Eastern District of Missouri.

2

that as part of this agreement, both the defendant and the government

hereby mutually agree to waive all rights to appeal whatever sentence is

imposed, including any issues that relate to the establishment of the

Guidelines range, reserving only the right to appeal from an upward or

downward departure from the Guidelines range that is established at

sentencing.

The district court1

 drew Morris’s attention to the appeal waiver at his changeof-plea and sentencing hearings. Morris was sentenced to 138 months in prison and

five years of supervised release.

Morris appeals, raising an issue--the calculation of his criminal history score--

that relates to the establishment of his Guidelines range. Because we conclude that

he knowingly and voluntarily waived his right to appeal his sentence, and that his

appeal falls within the scope of the appeal waiver, we grant the government’s motion

to dismiss this appeal. See United States v. Andis, 333 F.3d 886, 889-90 (8th Cir.)

(en banc), cert. denied, 124 S. Ct. 501 (2003).

______________________________
**Exhibit 23.3**

**CONSENT OF INDEPENDENT REGISTERED PUBLIC ACCOUNTING FIRM**

We hereby consent to the incorporation byreference in the Registration Statements on Form S-8 (No. 333-122167) and Form S-3 (No. 333-131208) of our report dated July 19, 2004 relating to the statements of operations, of stockholders equity and of cash flows of Litrex Corporation forthe year ended December 31, 2003 (not presented separately) in this Form 10-K of Cambridge Display Technology, Inc. 

/s/    PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP 

San Jose, California 

March 10, 2006
### D ISTRICT 

### C OURT 

### O F 

### A PPEAL 

### O F 

### T HE 

### S TATE 

### O F 

### F LORIDA

F OURTH D ISTRICT

RALPH H . RUSSELL, JR., and MELINDA T. RUSSELL
, Appellant s ,

v.

THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON FKA THE BANK OF NEW YORK

a s Trustee f or The Benefit o f THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS OF THE

CWALT INC. ALTERNATIVE LOAN TRUST 2005

- 59 MORTGAGE PASS THROUGH CERTIFICATES, SERIES 2005

- 59, Appellee

.

No. 4D 19

- 125

[ March 11, 2020 ]

Appeal from the Circuit Court for the Seventeenth Judicial Circuit, Broward County ; Joel T. Lazarus, Senior Judge; L.T. Case No. CACE 18

- 0 14807 (11)

.

Bruce K. Herman of The Herman Law Group, P.A., Fort Lauderdale, for appellants.

Morgan L. Weinstein of Van Ness Law Firm, P.L.C., Deerfield Beach, for appellee.

P ER C URIAM

.

Affirmed. See Schroeder v. MTGLQ Investors, L.P.

, 45 Fla. L. Weekly

D339 (Fla. 4th DCA Feb. 12, 2020).

C IKLIN
, C ONNER and K UNTZ
, JJ., concur.

* * *

Not final until disposition of timely filed motion for rehearing.
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H.R. 3368 Reported in Senate (RS)]

                                                       Calendar No. 342
109th CONGRESS
  1st Session
                                H. R. 3368

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                            October 26, 2005

Received; read twice and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security 
                        and Governmental Affairs

                           December 16, 2005

               Reported by Ms. Collins, without amendment

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 
 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, as the ``Gagetown 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION.

     The facility of the United States Postal Service located at 6483 
Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, shall be known and designated as 
the ``Gagetown Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

SEC. 2. REFERENCES.

     Any reference in a law, map, regulation, document, paper, or other 
record of the United States to the facility referred to in section 1 
shall be deemed to be a reference to the ``Gagetown Veterans Memorial 
Post Office''.
                                                       Calendar No. 342

109th CONGRESS

  1st Session

                               H. R. 3368

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 AN ACT

 To designate the facility of the United States Postal Service located 
    at 6483 Lincoln Street in Gagetown, Michigan, as the ``Gagetown 
                    Veterans Memorial Post Office''.

_______________________________________________________________________

                           December 16, 2005

                       Reported without amendment
```
#### Stephen Metz, an Infant, by His Parent and Natural Guardian, Charles Metz, Respondent, v State of New York, Appellant.

(Claim No. 58938.)

Appeal from a judgment, entered August 12, 1976, upon a decision of the Court of Claims. At approximately 1:00 p.m. on September 28, 1973, claimant was injured in a fall when his bicycle struck an object while he was riding in a southerly direction on the west sidewalk beside New York State Route 111 in the Town of Smithtown, Suffolk County. Upon regaining his senses after the mishap, he observed a fallen metal signpost for a "No *1077Standing or Parking” sign lying across the walk, and, based on the assumption that this was the object which had precipitated his fall, he subsequently commenced the present action against the State. Following a trial, the court concluded that claimant was free from contributory negligence and that the State was liable to him in negligence because of the dangerous condition which resulted from the signpost lying across the walk. Accordingly, claimant was awarded a judgment in the amount of $2,500, and this appeal ensued. We hold that the judgment appealed from must be reversed. There was absolutely no evidence produced at the trial that the State in any way created the dangerous condition complained of and, even assuming, *arguendo,*that the State had an inadequate inspection system for its road signs in Suffolk County as found by the court, there was likewise no proof that a proper inspection system would have discovered the fallen sign prior to the accident. Indeed, on the instant record, the sign in question could well have been knocked down only moments before claimant’s mishap or even as a consequence thereof, and such being the case, there was simply no adequate basis upon which it could be found that the State had either actual or constructive notice of the condition. Under these circumstances, the imposition of liability on the State was clearly erroneous (cf. *Beutenmiller v West End Tavern,*1 NY2d 652, mot for rearg den 1 NY2d 859; *Pascual v State of New York,*23 AD2d 518). We reach no other issue. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and claim dismissed, without costs. Kane, J. P., Staley, Jr., Main, Larkin and Mikoll, JJ., concur.
AD Grid Sheet 

Docket No.: FAA-2013-0828 

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-036-AD 

AD Action: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

This action applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model 

A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. 

If this draft is acceptable, please legibly sign the grid to the right with your first initial 

and full last name to show concurrence with this AD. 

ONCURRENCES 

ANM-114 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nan 

DATE 

OUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nan 

OUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nan 

ATE 

OUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nan 

ATE 
I , 

AD Grid Sbeet 

Docket No.: FAA-2013-0828 

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-036-AD 

AD Attion: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

This action applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model 

A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. 

If this draft is acceptable, please legibly sign the grid to the right wjth your first initial 

and fulll3$t name to .show concurrence with this AD. 

)Al'F 
. . 

AD Grid Sheet 

Docket No.: FAA-2013-0828 

Directorate Identifier: 2012-NM-036-AD 

AD Action: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (SNPRM) 

This action applies to Airbus Model A330-200 and -300 series airplanes; and Model 

A340-200 and -300 series airplanes. 

If this draft is acceptable, please legibly sign the grid to the right with your first initial 

and full last name to show concurrence with this AD. 

I 

!CONCURRENCES 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ANM-116VU 

r;;~;;;;;;La tNam 

/)j 1' /iorf' 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

ANM-116RB 

rAb~ (First Initial/Last Nam 

·\~ 

DAr /z7 lt4-

ROUTif.IG SYMBOL 

SEAAEG 

~IGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

PATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

DATE 

ROUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

PATE 

!ROUTING SYMBOL 

SIGNATURE (First Initial/Last Nam 

DATE
#### Joseph R. Wolfson et al., v. Arnold A. Mandell et al.

Motion to dispense with printing granted insofar as to dispense with the printing in the record on appeal of Exhibits II, III, III-A, III-B and III-C on condition that six photostatic copies of each of the aforesaid exhibits are filed with this court together with the record on appeal and appellants’ points on or before February 28, 1961. Concur — Breitel, J. P., Rabin, McNally, Stevens and Eager, JJ.
Exhibit 99.1

 

**December 29, 2006**

 

John Lowber, (907) 868-5628, jlowber@gci.com

Bruce Broquet, (907) 868-6660, bbroquet@gci.com

 

**FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE**

 

**GCI COMMENTS ON FCC’S ANCHORAGE FORBEARANCE DECISION**

 

|   | **•** | **Approximately 26,500 Anchorage unbundled loops will be subject to a monthly rate increase from $18.64 to $23.00 starting at the end of 2007.** |
|--------|------------|--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

 

**ANCHORAGE, AK -**General Communication, Inc. (“GCI”) (NASDAQ:GNCMA.) reviewed the Federal Communications Commission’s (FCC) press release issued yesterday announcing its decision in the Anchorage forbearance case.  In 2005, ACS of Anchorage (ACS) filed a forbearance petition requesting the FCC to relieve ACS of its statutory obligation to provide unbundled loops throughout the Anchorage market.  The requested relief would have enabled ACS to (i) deny GCI access to unbundled loops altogether or (ii) impose prohibitive rates and terms on unbundled loops. 

 

The FCC’s decision grants ACS some relief in 5 of the 11 Anchorage wire centers.  The decision, however, conditions the relief on ACS’ continuing to provide GCI unbundled loops in those 5 wire centers at the same rates, terms, and conditions as those negotiated between GCI and ACS for Fairbanks in 2004.  This condition will remain in effect until such time as GCI and ACS establish new commercially negotiated rates for Anchorage.  Both the forbearance relief and the condition will take effect after a one-year transition period.

 

GCI expects the primary effect of the decision to be an increase, starting at the end of 2007, in the unbundled loop rate in the 5 Anchorage wire centers from $18.64 per loop per month to $23.00.  GCI estimates that at the end of 2006, it will be using approximately 26,500 ACS unbundled loops in the 5 Anchorage wire centers.  

 

The rate increase reinforces GCI’s determination to finish converting the customers it serves in Anchorage using ACS unbundled loops to GCI’s own facilities.  

 

The FCC has not yet released the full text of its decision, and GCI will closely analyze the decision upon its release.  

 

GCI is the largest telecommunications company in Alaska.  A pioneer in bundled services, GCI provides local, wireless, and long distance telephone, cable television, Internet and data communications services throughout Alaska. More information about the company can be found at www.gci.com.

 

#   #   #
### PART C—PIPELINE CARRIERS

#### **Editorial Notes**

#### Amendments

1996—Pub. L. 104–287, §5(40), Oct. 11, 1996, 110 Stat. 3392, made technical amendment to part heading.
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000

<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   3-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-2000
<PERIOD-START>                             APR-01-2000
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-2000
<CASH>                                           4,068
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                    4,789
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                      7,557
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                29,979
<PP&E>                                         446,278
<DEPRECIATION>                                  96,894
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                 403,616
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                          238,916
<BONDS>                                        170,000
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                      7,489
<COMMON>                                             0
<OTHER-SE>                                     137,160
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                   403,616
<SALES>                                          2,984
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                 2,984
<CGS>                                           13,657
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                   13,657
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                46,182
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              12,602
<INCOME-PRETAX>                               (96,186)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                           (96,186)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                  (96,186)
<EPS-BASIC>                                          0
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0


</TABLE>
Exhibit 32.1

CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE  OFFICER OF TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY  PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. § 1350

In connection with the accompanying report on Form 10-Q for the period ending September 30, 2003 and filed with the Securities and
Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Robert E. Sulentic, Chief Executive Officer of Trammell Crow Company (the "Company"), hereby certify that:



| |  | /s/ROBERT E. SULENTICName: Robert E. Sulentic
Date: November 14, 2003
| |  | ---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

QuickLinks
### PART C—INFORMATION, STANDARDS, AND REQUIREMENTS
#### State of Connecticut *v.*Mitchell Pitt

*Timothy Patrick Brady,*in support of the petition.

*Margaret Gaffney Rodionovas,*deputy assistant state’s attorney, in opposition.

Decided October 22, 1992

The defendant’s petition for certification for appeal from the Appellate Court, 28 Conn. App. 825, is denied.
§ 203.32 What other requirements or restrictions apply to royalty relief for a qualified phase 2 or phase 3 ultra-deep well? ( a ) If a qualified ultra-deep well on your lease is within a unitized portion of your lease, the RSV earned by that well under this section applies only to your lease and not to other leases within the unit or to the unit as a whole.
( b ) If your qualified ultra-deep well is a directional well (either an original well or a sidetrack) drilled across a lease line, then either: ( 1 ) The lease with the perforated interval that initially produces earns the RSV or
( 2 ) If the perforated interval crosses a lease line, the lease where the surface of the well is located earns the RSV.
( c ) Any RSV earned under § 203.31 is in addition to any royalty suspension supplement (RSS) for your lease under § 203.45 that results from a different wellbore.
( d ) If your lease earns an RSV under § 203.31 and later produces from a deep well that is not a qualified well, the RSV is not forfeited or terminated, but you may not apply the RSV earned under § 203.31 to production from the non-qualified well.
( e ) You owe minimum royalties or rentals in accordance with your lease terms notwithstanding any RSVs allowed under paragraphs (a) and (b) of § 203.31.
( f ) Unused RSVs transfer to a successor lessee and expire with the lease.