alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
301.602-3 Ratification of unauthorized commitments. ( b ) *Policy.* ( 1 ) The Government is not bound by agreements with, or contractual commitments made to, prospective contractors by individuals who do not have delegated contracting authority. Unauthorized commitments do not follow the appropriate process for the expenditure of Government funds. Consequently, the Government may not be able to ratify certain actions, putting a contractor at risk for taking direction from a Federal official other than the contracting officer. See FAR 1.602-1. Government employees responsible for unauthorized commitments are subject to disciplinary action. Contractors perform at their own risk when accepting direction from unauthorized officials. Failure to follow statutory and regulatory processes for the expenditure of Government funds is a very serious matter.
( 2 ) The head of the contracting activity (HCA) is the official authorized to ratify an unauthorized commitment. No other re-delegations are authorized.
( c ) *Limitations.* ( 5 ) The HCA shall coordinate the request for ratification with the Office of General Counsel, General Law Division and submit a copy to the SPE.
Document Headings

                    Document headings vary by document type but may contain                    the following:                  
                -                       the agency or agencies that issued and signed a document                    
                -                       the number of the CFR title and the number of each part                      the document amends, proposes to amend, or is directly                      related to                    
                -                       the agency docket number / agency internal file number                    
                -                       the RIN which identifies each regulatory action listed in                      the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulatory and Deregulatory                      Actions                    

                    See the                                          Document Drafting Handbook                                        for more details.                  

###### Securities and Exchange Commission

# Federal Register CITATION OF PREVIOUS ANNOUNCEMENT:

86 FR 6687, January 22, 2021.

# PREVIOUSLY ANNOUNCED TIME AND DATE OF THE MEETING:

 Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m.

# CHANGES IN THE MEETING:

 The Closed Meeting scheduled for Wednesday, January 27, 2021 at 2:00 p.m., has been cancelled.

# CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION:

 For further information; please contact Vanessa A. Countryman from the Office of the Secretary at (202) 551-5400.

 Dated: January 27, 2021.

Vanessa A. Countryman,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 2021-02131 Filed 1-28-21; 11:15 am]

BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
Fourth Department,

February, 1979

(February 16, 1979)

#### First Trust & Deposit Company, Respondent, v Reynolds Motors, Inc., Appellant.

— Appeal dismissed, without costs, upon stipulation. (Appeal from order of Onondaga County Court — vacate default judgment.) Present— Moule, J. P., Dillon, Hancock, Jr., Schnepp and Witmer, JJ.
**Who May Apply: (by category)** Institutions of Higher Education (IHEs)**Who May Apply: (specifically)** HBCUs, TCUs, MSIs

FIPSE Home
_________________________________________ 

 

 

Order Michigan Supreme Court

Lansing, Michigan 

July 31, 2006 Clifford W. Taylor,

 Chief Justice 

130730 Michael F. Cavanagh 

Elizabeth A. Weaver 

Marilyn Kelly 

Maura D. Corrigan 

NORMA KAKISH and RAJAIE KAKISH,

Plaintiffs-Appellants, 

Robert P. Young, Jr. 

Stephen J. Markman,

 Justices 

v SC: 130730 

 COA: 260963 

Ingham CC: 04-000809-NI

DOMINION OF CANADA GENERAL 

INSURANCE COMPANY, 

Defendant-Appellee. 

_________________________________________/ 

On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the December 29, 2005 

judgment of the Court of Appeals is considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(G)(1), in 

lieu of granting leave to appeal, we REMAND this case to the Court of Appeals for 

consideration of the issues whether the Ingham Circuit Court could exercise ancillary 

jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claim for uninsured/unidentified motorist benefits and 

whether the applicable insurance contract required plaintiffs to bring any lawsuit in an 

Ontario court. 

CAVANAGH, J., not participating. 

p0724 

I, Corbin R. Davis, 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. 

July 31, 2006 

 Clerk
IIA 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. J. RES. 64 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United 

States Code, of the rule submitted by the Department of the Treasury 

relating to ‘‘Returns by Exempt Organizations and Returns by Certain 

Non-Exempt Organizations’’. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

SEPTEMBER 24, 2018 

Mr. TESTER (for himself and Mr. WYDEN) introduced the following joint 

resolution; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

JOINT RESOLUTION 

Providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of 

title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by 

the Department of the Treasury relating to ‘‘Returns 

by Exempt Organizations and Returns by Certain NonExempt Organizations’’. 

1 Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives

2 of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 That Congress disapproves the rule submitted by the De4 partment of the Treasury relating to ‘‘Returns by Exempt 

5 Organizations and Returns by Certain Non-Exempt Orga6 nizations’’ (Rev. Proc. 2018–38 (July 16, 2018)), received 

7 in the House of Representatives on July 26, 2018, and 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SJ 64 IS 

1 received in the Senate on July 30, 2018, and such rule 

2 shall have no force or effect. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
# C_2016385EN.01000101.xml

| 19.10.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 385/1 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

19.10.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 385/1

---

Non-opposition to a notified concentration

(Case M.8104 — HNA Group/Gategroup)

(Text with EEA relevance)

(2016/C 385/01)

On 20 September 2016, the Commission decided not to oppose the above notified concentration and to declare it compatible with the internal market. This decision is based on Article 6(1)(b) of Council Regulation (EC) No 139/2004 (1). The full text of the decision is available only in English language and will be made public after it is cleared of any business secrets it may contain. It will be available:

1

| — | in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes, |
| --- | --- |

—

in the merger section of the Competition website of the Commission (http://ec.europa.eu/competition/mergers/cases/). This website provides various facilities to help locate individual merger decisions, including company, case number, date and sectoral indexes,

| — | in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8104. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law. |
| --- | --- |

—

in electronic form on the EUR-Lex website (http://eur-lex.europa.eu/homepage.html?locale=en) under document number 32016M8104. EUR-Lex is the online access to the European law.

---

(1)  OJ L 24, 29.1.2004, p. 1.

1

---
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 21 (Wednesday, February 3, 2021)]
[Notices]
[Page 8009]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-02226]



[[Page 8009]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission


Combined Notice of Filings

    Take notice that the Commission has received the following Natural 
Gas Pipeline Rate and Refund Report filings:

    Docket Numbers: RP21-402-000.
    Applicants: Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Negotiated Rate--Yankee Gas 
510802 Release eff 1-27-2021 to be effective 1/27/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/26/21.
    Accession Number: 20210126-5060.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-403-000.
    Applicants: Bobcat Gas Storage.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Bobcat Title Transfer Process 
Update eff 03-02-2021 to be effective 3/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/27/21.
    Accession Number: 20210127-5120.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-404-000.
    Applicants: Egan Hub Storage, LLC.
    Description: Sec.  4(d) Rate Filing: Egan Title Transfer Process 
Update eff 3-2-21 to be effective 3/2/2021.
    Filed Date: 1/27/21.
    Accession Number: 20210127-5121.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    Docket Numbers: RP21-405-000.
    Applicants: Big Sandy Pipeline, LLC.
    Description: Compliance filing Big Sandy Fuel Filing effective 3/1/
2021.
    Filed Date: 1/27/21.
    Accession Number: 20210127-5138.
    Comments Due: 5 p.m. ET 2/8/21.

    The filings are accessible in the Commission's eLibrary system 
(https://elibrary.ferc.gov/idmws/search/fercgensearch.asp) by querying 
the docket number.
    Any person desiring to intervene or protest in any of the above 
proceedings must file in accordance with Rules 211 and 214 of the 
Commission's Regulations (18 CFR 385.211 and 385.214) on or before 5:00 
p.m. Eastern time on the specified date(s). Protests may be considered, 
but intervention is necessary to become a party to the proceeding.
    eFiling is encouraged. More detailed information relating to filing 
requirements, interventions, protests, service, and qualifying 
facilities filings can be found at: http://www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/efiling/filing-req.pdf. For other information, call (866) 208-3676 
(toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

    Dated: January 28, 2021.
Nathaniel J. Davis, Sr.,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2021-02226 Filed 2-2-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717-01-P
* This order and judgment is not binding precedent, e xcept under the

doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and col lateral estoppel. The court generally disfavors the citation of orders and judg ments; nevertheless, an order and judgment may be cited under the terms and condi tions of 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

## F I L E D United States Court of Appeals Tenth Circuit 

### FEB 18 1998 

### PATRICK FISHER Clerk UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT

REINARD MARKUS SIMON,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

v. NORTHERN FARMS, INC., a Missouri corporation; JULIE A. ROBINSON, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge; GARY R. GUILFORD; J. SCOTT POHL; LINDA S. PARKS; W.K. JENKINS; MICHAEL D. HILL, Sedgwick County Sheriff; MARK J. LASSO; GENE FRANCIS, Auctioneer; NATIONAL CREDIT UNION ADMINISTRATION; RICHARD V. FOOTE; CHARLES H. EHM; JOHN K. PEARSON, U.S. Bankruptcy Judge; and BRUCE FROST, Defendants-Appellees. No. 97-3269 (D.C. No. 97-CV-1164) (D. Kan.)

ORDER AND JUDGMENT *

Before BALDOCK , EBEL , and MURPHY , Circuit Judges.-2-

After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materiallyassist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The c ase is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. Plaintiff appeals from a number of district court o rders entered in this action, which consolidated two cases alleging the v iolation of plaintiff’s constitutional rights as a result of a bankruptcy p roceeding involving plaintiff and his wife as debtors. Plaintiff appeals the distric t court’s decision denying his motions for default judgment, which we review only for an abuse of discretion,

seePanis v. Mission Hills Bank, N.A. , 60 F.3d 1486, 1494 (10th Cir. 1995), and his motions for summary judgment, which we review d e novo, see United States v. Simons , 129 F.3d 1386, 1388 (10th Cir. 1997). Plaintiff also appeals the district court’s dismiss al of his claims, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), some with prejudice and s ome without prejudice. We review the district court’s dismissal de novo, a ccepting all well-pleaded allegations as true. See Summum v. Callaghan , 130 F.3d 906, 913 (10th Cir. 1997). Lastly, plaintiff appeals from the dismissa l of any supplemental state law claims without prejudice, a determination left to the district court’s discretion.-3-

See Nwosun v. General Mills Restaurants, Inc. , 124 F.3d 1255, 1258 (10th Cir. 1997). We liberally construe plaintiff’s pro se pl eadings. See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). Upon careful consideration of the record and the parties’ appellate arguments, we affirm for substantially the reasons set forth in the district court’s “Memorandum and Order” entered August 26, 1997. Th e mandate shall issue forthwith.

Entered for the Court

Michael R. Murphy Circuit Judge
Disclaimer

### State Department of Education

Maryland State Department of Education200 West Baltimore StreetBaltimore, MD 21201Phone: (410) 767-0100Fax: (410) 333-6033Website: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org

### State Higher Education Agency

Maryland Higher Education Commission6. N. Liberty StreetBaltimore, MD 21201Phone: (410) 767-3300Website: http://www.mhec.state.md.us/

### Special Education Agency

Division of Special Education/Early Intervention ServicesMaryland State Department of Education200 West Baltimore StreetBaltimore, MD 21201Phone: (410) 767-0238Toll-Free: (800) 535-0182Fax: (410) 333-8165Website: http://marylandpublicschools.org/programs/pages/special-education/index.aspx

### State Adult Education Agency

Division of Workforce Development and Adult Learning Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation 1100 North Eutaw Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Phone: (410) 767-2173Website: http://www.dllr.state.md.us/gedmd/

Back to state map
III 

115TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. RES. 515 

Honoring the 70th anniversary of the reactivation in 1948 of the 3d Infantry 

Regiment of the United States Army. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 17, 2018 

Mr. COTTON submitted the following resolution; which was considered and 

agreed to 

RESOLUTION 

Honoring the 70th anniversary of the reactivation in 1948 

of the 3d Infantry Regiment of the United States Army. 

Whereas, the 3d Infantry Regiment of the United States 

Army (commonly known as the ‘‘Old Guard’’) (referred 

to in this preamble as the ‘‘3d Infantry Regiment’’)— 

(1) is the oldest active-duty infantry unit of the 

United States Army; and 

(2) has served the United States since 1784; 

Whereas the 3d Infantry Regiment— 

(1) is the escort to the President and official ceremonial unit of the United States Army; and 

(2) provides security for Washington, District of Columbia, in times of national emergency and civil disturbance; 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
2 

•SRES 515 ATS 

Whereas, in 1847, following the valorous performance of the 

3d Infantry Regiment in the Mexican War, General Winfield Scott gave the unit the moniker of the ‘‘Old Guard’’ 

during a victory parade in Mexico City; 

Whereas the 3d Infantry Regiment has a long history of service, which spans from the Battle of Fallen Timbers to 

World War II and the Global War on Terrorism; 

Whereas, in its capacity as the official ceremonial unit of the 

United States Army, the 3d Infantry Regiment is responsible for conducting military ceremonies at the White 

House, the Pentagon, and national memorials, as well as 

elsewhere in the capital of the United States; 

Whereas a battalion of the 3d Infantry Regiment is stationed 

at Joint Base Lewis-McChord in Tacoma, Washington, 

and has been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan multiple 

times during the Global War on Terrorism; and 

Whereas soldiers of 3d Infantry Regiment— 

(1) maintain a 24-hour vigil at the Tomb of the Unknowns; 

(2) provide military funeral escorts at Arlington National Cemetery; 

(3) participate in parades at Fort Myer and Fort 

Lesley J. McNair; and 

(4) train and are deployed for missions of the 

United States Army around the world: Now, therefore, be 

it 

1 Resolved, That the Senate honors the 70th anniver2 sary of the reactivation in 1948 of the 3d Infantry Regi3 ment of the United States. 

Æ 


daltland on DSKBBV9HB2PROD with BILLS
T hi s di s pos i t i on i s notappr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on and i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by9th C i r . R . 36- 3.

T he pa ne l una ni m ous l yc onc l ude s thi s c a s e i s s ui t abl e f orde c i s i on ** w ith o u t o r a l a r g u m e n t. See F ed. R . A pp . P . 34 (a )( 2). NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T UN I T E D S T AT E S OF AME R I C A, P l ai nt i ff

- A pp el l ee , v. J OH N THO NA RS M CGEE , D e f

e n d a n t - A p p e lla n t. N o. 12- 50119 D. C . No . 2 : 0 7 - c r - 0 1 2 0 8 - AH M ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e C e n tr a l D is tr ic t o f C a lif o rn ia A . H ow a r d M a t z , D i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng S ubm i tt e d J ul y24, 2013 ** B efo re: A L A R C Ó N , C L IF T O N , an dC A L L A H A N , C i rcu i tJu d g es. J ohn T hona r s M c G e e appe a l s f r om the di s tr i c tc ourt ’ s or de rde ny i ng hi s 18 U . S . C . § 3 58 2(c) (2) m ot i on for r educt i on of se nt ence . W e have j uri sdi ct i on un der 2 8 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1 . W e r e v ie w d e n o v o w h e th e rad is tr ic t c o u rt h a s au th o r ityto 

# FI LED AU G 01 2013 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U . S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS12- 50119 2 m o d if yas e n te n c e u n d e rs e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e U ni te d States v . P le as ant , 704 F .3 d8 0 8 , 8 1 0 ( 9 th C ir . 2 0 1 3 ) . W e a f f irm . M cG ee cont ends thathe i s e l i gi bl e f or a s ent ence re du ct i on un der A m endm ent75 0 t o the G ui del i nes, w hi ch l ow er ed the offens e l evel s f or cr i m es i nvol vi ng c oc a i ne ba s e unde rU . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1. M c G e e a c know l e dge s tha tthe di stri ctcourtca l cul at ed hi s a dv i soryrang e und erU . S . S . G . § 4 B 1. 1, the care er offe nd ergu i del i ne, and thatcare eroffe nd er s are no tel i gi bl e f or a s ent ence r e d u c tio n u n d e rs e c tio n 3 5 8 2 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Se e U ni te d States v . W

e s s on , 583 F . 3d 728, 731- 32 ( 9th C i r . 2009) . H e c ont e nds , how e ve r , tha the i s e nt i t l e d t o ar e duc t i on be c aus e the c ourtr e l i e d i n pa rton U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1 i n va ry i ng dow nw a r d. T he r e c or d r e f

l e c t s tha tthe c ourtdi d notr e l yon U . S . S . G . § 2D 1. 1 i n va ry i ng dow nw a r d. E ve n i f

i tha d, ar e duc t i on i n M c G e e ’ s s e nt e nc e w oul d notbe c o n s is te n t w ith U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 ( a ) ( 1 ) , w h ic h e s tab lis h e s th a t th e ap p lic ab le G u id e lin e s r a n g e is th e p r e - d e p a rtu r e a n dp r e - v a r ia n c e G u id e lin e s r a n g e . See U .S .S .G . § 1 B 1 .1 0 c m t. n .1 ( A ) ( 2 0 1 1 ) ; P le as ant , 7 0 4 F . 3 dat8 1 2 . A cco rd i n g l y, th e d is tr ic t c o u rt la c k e dau th o r ityto r e d u c e M c G e e ’s s e n te n c e . Se e i d. A F F I R M E D .
EXHIBIT 12
  INTERNATIONAL
    LEASE FINANCE CORPORATION AND SUBSIDIARIES
  COMPUTATION
    OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
 AND PREFERRED STOCK DIVIDENDS
 (Unaudited)
  Years Ended December 31,2008


2007


2006


2005


2004(Dollars in thousands)EarningsNet income

$
703,125


$
604,366


$
499,267


$
438,349


$
462,006Add:Provision for income taxes


391,596



310,519



216,840



235,834



206,101Fixed charges


1,606,610



1,653,288



1,520,777



1,221,671



989,314Less:Capitalized interest


(26,597
)


(37,192
)


(48,038
)


(54,097
)


(48,390
)Earnings as adjusted (A)

$
2,674,734


$
2,530,981


$
2,188,846


$
1,841,757


$
1,609,031Preferred dividend requirements

$
5,227


$
5,346


$
5,421


$
4,650


$
3,826Ratio of income before provision for income taxes to net income


156
%


151
%


143
%


154
%


145
%Preferred dividend factor on pretax basis


8,154



8,072



7,752



7,161



5,548Fixed chargesInterest expense


1,576,664



1,612,886



1,469,650



1,164,432



936,517Capitalized interest


26,597



37,192



48,038



54,097



48,390Interest factor of rents


3,349



3,210



3,089



3,142



4,407Fixed charges as adjusted (B)


1,606,610



1,653,288



1,520,777



1,221,671



989,314Fixed charges and preferred stock dividends (C)


1,614,764



1,661,360



1,528,529



1,228,832


$
994,862Ratio of earnings to fixed charges ((A) divided by (B))


1.66x



1.53x



1.44x



1.51x



1.63xRatio of earnings to fixed charges and preferred stock dividends
    ((A) divided by (C))


1.66x



1.52x



1.43x



1.50x



1.62x  81
EXHIBIT 32.2
                                                                  ------------


CERTIFICATION OF PERIODIC REPORT

I, Marvin F. Romanow,  Executive Vice President and Chief Financial  Officer of
Nexen Inc., a Canadian  Corporation  (the "Company"),  certify,  pursuant to 18
U.S.C.  Section 1350 as adopted  pursuant to Section 906 of the  Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)    the  Quarterly  Report on Form  10-Q of the  Company  for the  quarterly
       period  ended  September  30,  2006 as  filed  with the  Securities  and
       Exchange  Commission on the date hereof (the  "Report")  fully  complies
       with the  requirements  of Section 13(a) or 15(d),  as applicable 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.


Date:  October 27, 2006                       /s/ Marvin F. Romanow
                                              ------------------------------
                                              Marvin F. Romanow
                                              Executive Vice President
                                              and Chief Financial Officer
I8Order Form (01/2005)

United States District Court, Northern District of Illinois

Name of Assigned Judge

or Magistrate Judge

Robert W. Gettleman Sitting Judge if Other

than Assigned Judge

CASE NUMBER 12 C 5844 DATE 10/31/2012

CASE

TITLE

Flava Works vs John Does Nos 1-26

DOCKET ENTRY TEXT:

Plaintiff’s motion to vacate dismissal for want of prosecution is granted. Defendant’s motion

[11] is reinstated. Plaintiff’s response is due by 11/26/2012. Plaintiff’s reply is due by

12/21/2012. Status hearing is set for 2/19/2013, at 9:00 a.m.

 [Docketing to mail notice]

00:08

 Courtroom Deputy GDS

Page 1 of 1

Case: 1:12-cv-05844 Document #: 19 Filed: 10/31/12 Page 1 of 1 PageID #:719