alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 228 (Monday, November 29, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 73074-73075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29839]


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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. ER11-2066-000]


Duke Energy Washington II, LLC; Supplemental Notice That Initial 
Market-Based Rate Filing Includes Request for Blanket Section 204 
Authorization

November 18, 2010.
    This is a supplemental notice in the above-referenced proceeding, 
of Duke Energy Washington II, LLC's application for market-based rate 
authority, with an accompanying rate tariff, noting that

[[Page 73075]]

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 December 7, 2010.
    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 
14 copies of the intervention or protest to the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission, 888 First St., NE., Washington, DC 20426.
    The filings in the above-referenced proceeding(s) are accessible in 
the Commission's eLibrary system by clicking on the appropriate link in 
the above list. They are also available for review in the Commission's 
Public Reference Room in Washington, DC. There is an eSubscription link 
on the Web site that enables subscribers to receive e-mail notification 
when a document is added to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance with 
any FERC Online service, please e-mail <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#10565542535f7e7c797e75436560607f626450767562733e777f66"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="e3a5a6b1a0ac8d8f8a8d86b09693938c9197a385869180cd848c95">[email protected]</span></a> or 
call (866) 208-3676 (toll free). For TTY, call (202) 502-8659.

Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-29839 Filed 11-26-10; 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>
Exhibit 31.1
 CERTIFICATION
  1.
    
    I have reviewed this Annual Report on Form 10-K of NuPathe 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 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)) 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)
    
    Evaluated the effectiveness of the registrants disclosure controls and
procedures and presented in this report our 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(c)
    
    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 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 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: March 18, 2011
    /s/ Jane H. HollingsworthJane H. HollingsworthChief Executive Officer
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that

this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR . R. 47.5.4. United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit 

## FILED July 5, 2007 Charles R. Fulbruge III Clerk IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 06-51608 Summary Calendar

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee,

versus LANCE E. LIVINGSTON, Defendant-Appellant.

-------------------- Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas USDC No. 7:06-CR-104-2

-------------------- Before JOLLY, DENNIS, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM: * Lance E. Livingston appeals his conviction and sentence for conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute methamphetamine and aiding and abetting the distribution of methamphetamine. Livingston argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction and that the district court erred in declining to instruct the jury on the spoliation of evidence. Livingston’s argument challenging the sufficiency of theNo. 06-51608 -2- evidence does not address the evidence presented on the elements of conspiracy or aiding and abetting. He contends that the evidence did not show that he actually possessed or distributed methamphetamine. Livingston was charged and convicted of conspiracy and aiding and abetting. Thus, the Government was not required to prove that he actually possessed or distributed methamphetamine. See Delagarza-Villarreal , 141 F.3d 133, 140 (5th Cir. 1997). A reasonable trier of fact could have found Livingston guilty of conspiracy to distribute and possess with the intent to distribute and aiding and abetting distribution beyond a reasonable doubt. See United States v. Mendoza , 226 F.3d 340, 343 (5th Cir. 2000). Livingston’s challenge to the failure of the district court to instruct the jury on spoliation of evidence is also without merit. The record shows that the Government did not act in bad faith in the loss of the recorded interview of Livingston by Detective Mobley. See United States v. Wise , 221 F.3d 140, 156 (5th Cir. 2000). Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
II 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION S. 2969 

To suspend temporarily the duty on AC electric motors of an output exceeding 

74.6 W but not exceeding 95 W. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MAY 23, 2006 

Mr. FRIST (for himself and Mr. ALEXANDER) introduced the following bill; 

which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance 

A BILL 

To suspend temporarily the duty on AC electric motors of 

an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 95 W. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. AC ELECTRIC MOTORS OF AN OUTPUT EXCEED4 ING 74.6 W BUT NOT EXCEEDING 95 W. 

5 (a) IN GENERAL.—Subchapter II of chapter 99 of 

6 the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States is 

7 amended by inserting in numerical sequence the following 

8 new heading: 

‘‘ 9902.85.08 AC electric motors of an output exceeding 74.6 W but not exceeding 95 W, single phase, each equipped with a capacitor 

and a speed control mechanism (provided 

for in subheading 8501.40.40) ................ Free No change No change On or before 

12/31/2009 ’’. 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
2 

•S 2969 IS 

1 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendment made by 

2 subsection (a) applies to goods entered, or withdrawn from 

3 warehouse for consumption, on or after the 15th day after 

4 the date of the enactment of this Act. 

Æ 


dsatterwhite on PROD1PC76 with BILLS
Docket Number: FAA-2012-0640
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 1 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 2 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 3 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 4 of 5
Case 3:06-cv-00622-WKW-SRW Document 36 Filed 12/08/2006 Page 5 of 5
###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Authority:

7 U.S.C. 71-87K, 1621-1627.

###### Editorial Note on Subchapter A of Chapter VIII

#### Editorial Note:

Nomenclature changes to subchapter A appear at 84 FR 45645, Aug. 30, 2019.

#### § 801.1 Applicability.

The requirements set forth in this part 801 describe certain specifications, tolerances, and other technical requirements for official grain inspection equipment and related sample handling systems used in performing inspection services under the Act.
Exhibit
      13.1





**CERTIFICATION
      PURSUANT TO**


**18
      U.S.C. SECTION 1350,**


**AS
      ADOPTED PURSUANT TO**


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





In
      connection with the annual report on Form 20-F of Rodman International
      Enterprise I, Ltd. (the "Company") as filed with the Securities and Exchange
      Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, Arnold P. Kling, certify,
      pursuant to 18 U.S.C. ss. 1350, as adopted pursuant to ss. 906 of the
      Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to my knowledge:





(1)
      The
      Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the
      Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and





(2)
      The
      information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects,
      the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.





/s/
                Arnold P. KlingArnold
                P. Kling
              Principal
                Executive Officer
              June
                6, 2008
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA,

Respondent

v.

VICTOR RENELL BROWN,

Petitioner

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

No. 187 WAL 2018

Petition for Allowance of Appeal from 

the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 8th day of August, 2018, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
#### In the Matter of Emily F. Ramos, Respondent, v. Department of Mental Hygiene of the State of New York et al., Appellants.

Order and judgment (one paper) entered October 27, 1969, annulling the dismissal of petitioner and directing her restoration to her probationary position, unanimously reversed, on the law, without costs and without disbursements, and the matter remanded to Special Term to determine the triable issue whether the respondents’ determination that petitioner had failed to pass her probationary period was arbitrary and capricious. Contrary to the holding of the Special Term, made on the papers and without a trial, that petitioner had not been advised of her progress in her work as required by subdivision (i) of section 4.5 of the Rules and Regulations of the Department of Civil Service (4 NYCRR 4.5 [i]), the petition itself discloses that petitioner was advised of her progress during her probationary period. A trial is required, nevertheless, of the petitioner’s principal allegation not passed upon by Special Term — that her dismissal was arbitrary and capricious because it was unrelated to her work performance. A probationary employee need not be furnished with the charges against her, is not entitled to a hearing and may be dismissed without reason given for her removal. Where, however, as in the ease of petitioner, a substantial issue is raised that the termination of her services was not the result of the failure to perform her duties satisfactorily but was due to a personality conflict with a supervisor, a hearing is recommended as to the reasonableness of the determination. (See *Matter of 7oil*v. *Helbing,*256 App. Div. 44, app. dsmd. 294 N. Y. 653; *Matter of Silverman*v. *Taylor,*270 App. Div. 1040, motion dsmd. 296 N. Y. 827; *Matter of Maynard*v. *Monaghan,*284 App. Div. 280.) Concur—Stevens, P. J., Eager, Capozzoli, Nunez and Tilzer, JJ.
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

VFS LEASING CO., )

)

PLAINTIFF, )

) CIVIL ACTION NO.: 3:06CV638-SRW

VS. )

)

G. F. KELLY, INC d/b/a KELLY )

TRUCKING; and GUY KELLY, ) 

)

DEFENDANTS. )

DEFENDANTS’ WITNESS LIST

Comes now the Defendants G. F. Kelly, Inc. d/b/a Kelly Trucking and Guy Kelly and,

pursuant to the Uniform Scheduling Order, submits the following:

 1. The Defendants expect to call:

A. Guy Kelly

B. Charles Lance

 2. The Defendants may call:

A. Kevin Miller

B. Frank Childers, 164 Tallapoosa Street, Wadley, Al 36276; 256-395-4165

C. Jim Baker, 164 Tallapoosa Street, Wadley, Al 36276; 256-395-4165

D. Greg Fuller, 164 Tallapoosa Street, Wadley, Al 36276; 256-395-4165

E. Mark Childers, 164 Tallapoosa Street, Wadley, Al 36276; 256-395-4165

F. Allen Shokey, 3440 Birmingham Highway, Montgomery, AL, 334-834-9550

G. Tom Cooper, 1033 Lagrange Blvd, Atlanta, GA, 404-344-1189

 H. Witnesses listed by Plaintiff, unless otherwise objected to

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 43 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 1 of 2
2

I. Rebuttal witnesses

J. Impeachment Witnesses

 

 

/s/ James H. Starnes 

James H. Starnes, Attorney for Defendants 

OF COUNSEL:

P. O. Box 590003

Birmingham, AL 35259-0003

(205) 320-0800

/s/ S. Sanford Holliday 

S. Sanford Holliday, Attorney for Defendants 

OF COUNSEL:

P. O. Box 727

Roanoke, AL 36274

(334)863-2717

 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that I have the foregoing pleading electronically using the CM/ECF

system which will electronically serve a copy of same on all counsel of record on this the 29th

day of November, 2006 as follows:

David B. Hall

Julie A. Cottingham

BAKER DONALDSON 

420 North 20 Street, Suite 1600 th

Birmingham, AL 35203

 

/s/ James H. Starnes 

 OF COUNSEL

Case 3:06-cv-00638-SRW Document 43 Filed 06/18/2007 Page 2 of 2
52.249-13 [Reserved]

Parent topic: 52.249 [Reserved]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 2623 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 2623

To suspend temporarily the duty on 40% Polymer acid salt/polymer amide 
                           60% butyl acetate.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             April 24, 2006

  Mr. Voinovich (for himself and Mr. DeWine) introduced the following 
  bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Finance

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
To suspend temporarily the duty on 40% Polymer acid salt/polymer amide 
                           60% butyl acetate.

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

SECTION 1. 40% POLYMER ACID SALT/POLYMER AMIDE 60% BUTYL ACETATE.

    (a) In General.--Subchapter II of chapter 99 of the Harmonized 
Tariff Schedule of the United States is amended by inserting in 
numerical sequence the following new heading:

``      9902.29.32       40% Polymer acid   Free         No change        No change        On or before 12/  ''.
                         salt/polymer                                                       31/2009
                         amide 60% butyl
                         acetate (CAS Nos.
                         P-98-288 and 123-
                         86-4) (provided
                         for in subheading
                         3208.90.00)......

    (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by subsection (a) applies 
to articles entered, or withdrawn from warehouse for consumption, on or 
after the 15th day after the date of the enactment of this Act.
                                 <all>
```
#### § 500.14 Exceptions.

The Administrator, Agricultural Research Service, may in individual cases make prior, written exceptions to the rules and regulations in this part if it is determined to be not adverse to the public interest.
§ 799.5 National office environmental responsibilities. ( a ) The FSA Administrator or designee: ( 1 ) Is the Responsible Federal Officer (RFO) for FSA compliance with applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders, including NEPA, and unless otherwise specified, will make all determinations under this part;
( 2 ) Will ensure responsibilities for complying with NEPA are adequately delegated to FSA personnel within their areas of responsibility at the Federal, State, and county levels;
( 3 ) Will appoint a National Environmental Compliance Manager (NECM), as required by 40 CFR 1507.2(a), who reports directly to the FSA Administrator; and
( 4 ) Will appoint a qualified Federal Preservation Officer (FPO), as required by Executive Order 13287 “Preserve America” section 3(e) and by section 110 of NHPA (54 U.S.C. 306101). This individual must meet the National Park Service professional qualification standards requirements referenced in 36 CFR part 61 and will report directly to the NECM.
( b ) The NECM or designee coordinates FSA environmental policies and reviews under this part on a national basis and is responsible for: ( 1 ) Ensuring FSA legislative proposals and multistate and national programs are in compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental and cultural resource laws, regulations, and Executive Orders;
( 2 ) Providing education and training on implementing NEPA and other environmental compliance requirements to appropriate FSA personnel;
( 3 ) Serving as the principal FSA advisor to the FSA Administrator on NEPA and other environmental compliance requirements;
( 4 ) Representing FSA, and serving as an intra- and inter-agency liaison, on NEPA- and environmental compliance-related matters on a national basis;
( 5 ) Maintaining a record of FSA environmental compliance actions; and
( 6 ) Ensuring State and county office compliance with NEPA and other applicable environmental laws, regulations, and Executive Orders.
( c ) The FPO or designee coordinates NHPA compliance under this part and is responsible for: ( 1 ) Serving as the principal FSA advisor to the NECM on NHPA requirements;
( 2 ) Representing FSA, and serving as FSA intra- and inter-agency liaison, on all NHPA-related matters on a national basis;
( 3 ) Maintaining current FSA program guidance on NHPA requirements;
( 4 ) Maintaining a record of FSA environmental actions related to the NHPA; and
( 5 ) Ensuring State and county office compliance with the NHPA and other cultural resource-related requirements.
#### § 51.1413 Poorly developed.

*Poorly developed* means that the kernel is full-meated in less than 25 percent of its width and length.
§ 769.106 Limitations. ( a ) Loan funds may not be used for any land improvement or development purposes, acquisition or repair of buildings or personal property, payment of operating costs, payment of finders' fees, or similar costs, or for any purpose that will contribute to excessive erosion of highly erodible land or to the conversion of wetlands to produce an agricultural commodity as specified in 7 CFR part 12.
( b ) The amount of loan funds used to acquire land may not exceed the current market value of the land as determined by a current appraisal that meets the requirements as specified in 7 CFR 761.7(b)(1).
( c ) Agency HFIL loan funds may not be used for payment of the intermediary's administrative costs or expenses. The amount removed from the HFIL revolving fund for administrative costs in any year must be reasonable, must not exceed the actual cost of operating the HFIL revolving fund and must not exceed the amount approved by the Agency in the intermediary lender's annual loan monitoring report.
( d ) No loan to an intermediary lender may exceed the maximum amount the intermediary can reasonably expect to lend to eligible ultimate recipients, based on anticipated demand for loans to consolidate fractioned interests and capacity of the intermediary to effectively carry out the terms of the loan.
DISMISS and Opinion Filed April 7, 2014. 

# S

In The 

## Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

No. 05

- 13

- 01550

- CV

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS , Appellant

V.

MARIA RITA MARTINEZ AND 123 DIV ORCE COMPANY , Appellees

On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court Dallas County, Texas

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 10

- 12320



### MEMORANDUM OPINION

Before Justices Moseley, Francis, and Lang Opinion by Justice Moseley

Before the Court is the parties’ joint motion to vacate and render judgment pursuant to

their settlement agreement. We grant the parties’ motion, set aside the trial court’s judgment

without regard to the merits, and dismiss this appeal. See T EX

. R. A PP

. P. 42.1(a)(2).

131550F.P05 /Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE– 2

– 

# S

Court of Appeals Fifth District of Texas at Dallas

JUDGMENT

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF THE CITY OF DALLAS, Appellant

No. 05

- 13

- 01550

- CV V.

MARIA RITA MARTINEZ AND 123
DIVORCE COMPANY, Appellees On Appeal from the 301st Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas.

Trial Court Cause No. DF

- 10

- 12320. Opinion delivered by Justice Moseley. Justices Francis and Lang, participating.

In accordance with this Court’s opinion of this date , the trial court’s judgment is SET

ASIDE without regard to the merits and the appeal is DISMISSED

.

It is ORDERED that each party bear its own costs of this appeal.

Judgment entered this 7th day of April, 2014.

/Jim Moseley/

JIM MOSELEY

JUSTICE
#### § 75.45 Charge for appeals.

A charge of 1 hour shall be made for each appeal filed under § 75.26, and the fee for an appeal inspection shall equal the fee for the original inspection from which the appeal is taken, plus any charges for travel or other expenses incurred in performing the appeal: *Provided,* That when a material error in the certificate or sample from which the appeal is taken is found by the appeal inspector the charge and fee shall be waived.