alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 241 (Thursday, December 16, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Page 78798]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-31698]


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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

[File No. 500-1]


In the Matter of Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc.; Order of 
Suspension of Trading

December 14, 2010.
    It appears to the Securities and Exchange Commission that there is 
a lack of current and accurate information concerning the securities of 
Alternate Energy Holdings, Inc. (``AEHI'') because of questions 
regarding the accuracy and adequacy of disclosures by AEHI concerning, 
among other things: (1) The stock sales of certain AEHI officers, (2) 
the status and viability of funding to build a nuclear reactor, and (3) 
executive compensation. AEHI is quoted on the OTC Bulletin Board and on 
the Pink Sheets operated by Pink OTC Markets, Inc. under the ticker 
symbol ``AEHI.''
    The Commission is of the opinion that the public interest and the 
protection of investors require a suspension of trading in the 
securities of the above-listed company.
    Therefore, it is ordered, pursuant to Section 12(k) of the 
Securities Exchange Act of 1934, that trading in the securities of the 
above-listed company is suspended for the period from 9:30 a.m. EST, on 
December 14, 2010 through 11:59 p.m. EST, on December 28, 2010.

By the Commission.
Florence E. Harmon,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2010-31698 Filed 12-14-10; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P
**Exhibit 31.2CERTIFICATION**

**              I,Paul R. Dusenbury, Chief Financial Officer, certify that;**

**1.    I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q ofCNB Corporation;2.    Based on my knowledge, this report does not containany untrue statement of a      material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the      statements made, in light of thecircumstances under which such statements      were made, not misleading with respect tothe period covered by this report;**

**3.    Based on my knowledge, the financial statements, andother financial      information included in this report, fairlypresent in all material      respects the financial condition, resultsof operations and cash flows      of the registrant as of, and for, the periodspresented in this report;**

**4.    The registrant's other certifying officers and I areresponsible for      establishing and maintaining disclosurecontrols and procedures (as      defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and15d-15(e)) for the registrant and      have:**

**      a)   Designed suchdisclosure controls and procedures, or caused           suchdisclosure 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 otherswithin those entities, particularly during the period in which           this reportis being prepared;**

**      c)   Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant's disclosure controls and           proceduresand presented in this report our conclusions about the           effectivenessof the disclosure controls and procedures, as of the end           of the periodcovered by this report based on such evaluation; and**

**      d)   Disclosed in thisreport any change in the registrant's internal control           overfinancial reporting that occurred during the registrant's most           recent fiscalquarter that has materially affected, or is reasonably           likely tomaterially affect, the registrant's internal control over           financialreporting;**

**5.    The registrant's other certifying officer and I have disclosed,based on our      most recent evaluation of internal controlover financial reporting, to the      registrant's auditors and the auditcommittee of registrant's board of      directors (or persons performing theequivalent functions):**

**      a)   All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the           design oroperation of internal control over financial reporting           which arereasonably likely to adversely affect the registrant's           ability torecord, process, summarize and report financial           information;and**

**      b)   Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other           employees whohave a significant role in the registrant's internal           control overfinancial reporting.**

**Date:  May 14,2004                     /s/PaulR. Dusenbury                                                        PaulR. Dusenbury                                       Treasurerand Chief Financial Officer**
Subpart 331.1 - Applicability

Parent topic: PART 331 - CONTRACT COST PRINCIPLES AND PROCEDURES

331.101-70 Salary rate limitation.

(a) Beginning in fiscal year 1990, Congress has stipulated in the Department of Health and Human

Services appropriations acts and continuing resolutions that, under applicable contracts,

appropriated funds cannot be used to pay the direct salary of an individual above the stipulated

rates. The applicable rates for each year are identified at www.opm.gov.

(b) The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 352.231-70, Salary Rate Limitation, in

solicitations and contracts when a cost-reimbursement; fixed-price level-of-effort; time-andmaterials; or labor-hour contract is contemplated.
Exhibit No. 32.  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 quarterly report of Questar Pipeline Company on Form 10-Q for the period ended March 31, 2008, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the Report), R. Allan Bradley, President and Chief Executive Officer of the Company, and S. E. Parks, Vice President and Chief Financial Officer of the Company, each hereby certifies, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that, to the best of his knowledge:  (1) The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 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.  QUESTAR PIPELINE COMPANY   May 7, 2008 /s/R. Allan Bradley R. Allan Bradley President and Chief Executive Officer    May 7, 2008 /s/S. E. Parks S. E. Parks Vice President and Chief Financial Officer
<TABLE> <S> <C>


<ARTICLE> 5
<MULTIPLIER> 1,000
       
<S>                                           <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                                6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1998
<PERIOD-START>                             JAN-01-1998
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1998
<CASH>                                             316
<SECURITIES>                                         3
<RECEIVABLES>                                      383
<ALLOWANCES>                                       (6)
<INVENTORY>                                      1,512
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                                 2,282
<PP&E>                                           1,095
<DEPRECIATION>                                   (170)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                                   3,420
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                              480
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                        910
<COMMON>                                         6,816
<OTHER-SE>                                           0
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                     3,420
<SALES>                                          1,230
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                                     0
<CGS>                                              795
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                        0
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                                   685
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                                  12
<INCOME-PRETAX>                                      0
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                              (262)
<DISCONTINUED>                                   (625)
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                                     (888)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.41)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                        0
        


</TABLE>
#### § 993.602 Maximum tolerances.

In lieu of the provision prescribed in I C of § 993.97 that the tolerance allowances prescribed therein shall be on a weight basis, the tolerance allowance percentage for each defect or group of defects in I C of § 993.97 shall be derived by dividing the number of prunes in the applicable sample affected with the applicable defect(s) by the total number of prunes in such sample.

[39 FR 30344, Aug. 22, 1974]
IN THE SUPREM E COURT OF THE STATE OF M ONTANA No . DA 2 0 -0 4 78

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ IN THE M ATTER OF L.H., A Yo u th i n Needo f Care.

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ ORDER GRANTI NG EXTENSI ON OF TI ME

_ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ _ __ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ _ Onm o t i o n o f co u n sel fo r Ap p el lan t M o ther, IT IS ORDERED thatthe Ap p el l an tM o th er i s g ran t edan ex t en s io n o f t i m e u n t i l Fri d ay , J an u ary

8 , 2 0 2 1 t o fi l e an d s erv e t h e o p en i n g b ri ef o n ap p eal . No fu rt her ex t en s i on s wi l l b e g ran t edfo r t h e o p en i n g b ri ef. Th e Cl erki s d i rect edt o p ro v i d e co pi es o f t hi s o rd er t o al l co u n s el o f reco rd .

Pag e 1 of 1 Electronically signed by: Mike McGrath Chief Justice, Montana Supreme Court

November 16 2020

11/16/2020

Case Number: DA 20-0478
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.41 Procedures for administrations requiring a written directive. ( a ) For any administration requiring a written directive, the licensee shall develop, implement, and maintain written procedures to provide high confidence that: ( 1 ) The patient's or human research subject's identity is verified before each administration; and
( 2 ) Each administration is in accordance with the written directive.
( b ) At a minimum, the procedures required by paragraph (a) of this section must address the following items that are applicable to the licensee's use of byproduct material— ( 1 ) Verifying the identity of the patient or human research subject;
( 2 ) Verifying that the administration is in accordance with the treatment plan, if applicable, and the written directive;
( 3 ) Checking both manual and computer-generated dose calculations;
( 4 ) Verifying that any computer-generated dose calculations are correctly transferred into the consoles of therapeutic medical units authorized by §§ 35.600 or 35.1000;
( 5 ) Determining if a medical event, as defined in § 35.3045, has occurred; and
( 6 ) Determining, for permanent implant brachytherapy, within 60 calendar days from the date the implant was performed, the total source strength administered outside of the treatment site compared to the total source strength documented in the post-implantation portion of the written directive, unless a written justification of patient unavailability is documented.
( c ) A licensee shall retain a copy of the procedures required under paragraph (a) in accordance with § 35.2041.
[67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002, as amended at 72 FR 45151, Aug. 13, 2007; 83 FR 33104, July 16, 2018]
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) Case No. 1:06-cr-187-DRB

 )

CARRIE D. THORTON )

MOTION FOR LEAVE TO DISMISS INFORMATION

Comes now the United States of America by and through its Attorney for the Middle District

of Alabama and moves the Court for leave to dismiss the Information heretofore filed in the above

styled cause to Carrie D. Thorton on the following grounds, to wit: 

In the interest of justice. 

Respectfully submitted this the 23rd day of October, 2006.

Respectfully submitted,

LEURA GARRETT CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Kent B. Brunson

KENT B. BRUNSON

One Court Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

FAX: (334) 223-7135

kent.brunson@usdoj.gov

Case 1:06-cr-00187-DRB Document 5 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA )

 )

 v. ) Case No. 1:06-cr-187-DRB

 )

CARRIE D. THORTON )

O R D E R

Upon consideration of the Motion for Leave to Dismiss the Information as to Carrie D.

Thorton heretofore filed in the above styled cause, and for good cause shown, the Court is of the

opinion that the motion should be and the same hereby is granted. It is, therefore, CONSIDERED,

ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED by the Court that said motion be and the same is hereby

granted.

DONE this day of October, 2006.

 

 DELORES R. BOYD

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

DISMISSAL OF INFORMATION

Comes now the United States of America with leave of the Court first had and obtained and

dismisses the Information heretofore filed in the above styled cause as to Carrie D. Thorton.

Respectfully submitted,

LEURA GARRETT CANARY

UNITED STATES ATTORNEY

/s/ Kent B. Brunson

KENT B. BRUNSON

One Court Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Phone: (334) 223-7280

FAX: (334) 223-7135

kent.brunson@usdoj.gov

Case 1:06-cr-00187-DRB Document 5-2 Filed 10/23/2006 Page 1 of 1
Editorial Note on Part 35
Editorial Note: Nomenclature changes to part 35 appear at 79 FR 75739, Dec. 19, 2014.

§ 35.2432 Records of calibration measurements of brachytherapy sources. ( a ) A licensee shall maintain a record of the calibrations of brachytherapy sources required by § 35.432 for 3 years after the last use of the source.
( b ) The record must include— ( 1 ) The date of the calibration;
( 2 ) The manufacturer's name, model number, and serial number for the source and the instruments used to calibrate the source;
( 3 ) The source output or activity;
( 4 ) The source positioning accuracy within the applicators; and
( 5 ) The name of the individual, the source manufacturer, or the calibration laboratory that performed the calibration.
[67 FR 20370, Apr. 24, 2002, as amended at 68 FR 19326, Apr. 21, 2003]
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

NORTHERN DIVISION

LARRY JAMES ADAMS, )

)

Plaintiff, )

v. ) CASE NO. 2:06-cv-753-MEF

)

METROPOLITAN LIFE INSURANCE )

COMPANY, et al., )

)

Defendants )

RULE 26(f) ORDER

The parties are hereby reminded of the obligation, imposed by Rule 26(f) of the

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, to confer and to develop a proposed discovery plan. The

Rule 26(f) report containing the discovery plan shall be filed as soon as practicable but not

later than September 29, 2006.

The longstanding practice in this district is that dispositive motions shall be filed no

later than 90 days prior to the pretrial date. If the parties seek to vary from that schedule,

they should present, in the plan, specific case related reasons for the requested variance.

This case will be set for trial before the undersigned judge during one of that judge's

regularly scheduled civil trial terms. The pretrial date is normally set within four to six

weeks of a scheduled trial term. The dates of each judge's civil trial terms are available on

the court's website located at http://almd.uscourts.gov in the civil case information section.

This court may or may not hold a scheduling conference before issuing a scheduling

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 1 of 2
2

order. If the court holds a scheduling conference, counsel may participate in the scheduling

conference by conference call.

The scheduling order entered by the court will follow the form of the Uniform

Scheduling Order adopted by the judges of this court. The Uniform Scheduling Order is also

available on the court's website.

The report of the parties should comply with Form 35 of the Appendix of Forms to

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

DONE this the 11th day of September, 2006.

 /s/ Mark E. Fuller 

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 2:06-cv-00753-MEF-CSC Document 4 Filed 09/11/2006 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION

ALMA T. McBROOM, *

PLAINTIFF *

VS. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:06 CV767-F

JOHN E. POTTER, POSTMASTER *

GENERAL UNITED STATES POSTAL *

SERVICE; NATIONAL POSTAL *

MAIL HANDLERS UNION; THE *

MONTGOMERY ALABAMA AREA *

LOCAL AMERICAN POSTAL WORKERS *

UNION, AFL-CIO; and VANESSA *

GORDON, *

DEFENDANTS *

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR PRIVACY ACT PROTECTIVE ORDER

COMES NOW the Defendant, the Montgomery Area Local 

Alabama Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO (the “Local”), by and 

through counsel, and requests this Court to enter a Privacy 

Act Protective Order. In support of this Motion, Defendant 

states as follows: 

1. This is an action by a former Postal Worker, Alma 

T. McBroom, against the Local alleging a breach of the 

Union’s duty of fair representation.

2. The Local has served a subpoena upon the United 

States that requests it to produce Postal Service records 

relating to Plaintiff’s employment.

3. The United States has informed counsel that some 

responsive documents are contained within a system of 

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 67 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 1 of 2
records subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 

522a, and that disclosure of these records and information 

would be in violation of the Privacy Act unless authorized 

by Court Order. 5 U.S.C. § 522a(b)(11).

Respectfully submitted this 2nd day of May 2007.

/s/William P. Roberts, II_______

WILLIAM P. ROBERTS, II (ROB111)

Howell, Sarto & Howell 

P.O. Box 681864

Prattville, AL 36068-1864

Telephone: 334-365-2286

Facsimile No.:334-365-2400

E-mail:wprII@knology.net

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on May 2, 2007, I electronically 

filed the foregoing with the Clerk of the Court using the 

CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing 

to Plaintiff’s attorney.

/s/William P. Roberts, II

Case 2:06-cv-00767-MEF-SRW Document 67 Filed 05/02/2007 Page 2 of 2
#### § 993.1 Secretary.

*Secretary* means the Secretary of Agriculture of the United States, or any other officer or employee of the United States Department of Agriculture who is or who may hereafter be, authorized to exercise the powers and to perform the duties of the Secretary under the Act.
§ 1708.106 Limitation on participation. ( a ) A safety investigation under this rule is not a judicial or adjudicatory proceeding.
( b ) No person or entity has standing to intervene or participate as a matter of right in any safety investigation under this regulation.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF DELAWARE

JERALD HAMMANN

,

Plaintiff Below

, Appellant,

v.

DENNIS J. CARLO, RICHARD C.

WILLIAMS, HOWARD C.

BIRNDORF, ROSHAWN A.

BLUNT, and DAVID J.

MARGUGLIO

,

Defendants Below, Appellee s

. §

§ No. 52 , 20 2 4

§

§ Court Below

— Court of

§ Chancery of the State of

§ Delaware

§

§ C.A. No. 2 021

- 0506

§

§

§

§

§

Submitted: August 9 , 20 2 4

Decided: October 7 , 20 2 4

Before SEITZ , Chief Justice; VALIHURA and TRAYNOR

, Justices

.

ORDER

A fter careful consideration of the parties’ briefs and the record below, we find

it evident that judgment should be affirmed on the basis of and for the reasons stated

in the Court of Chancery’s January 12, 2024 Final Order and J udgment ; August 23,

2023 Memorandum Opinion; October 16, 2023 Order Addressing Motion for

Reargument; March 24, 2023 Order Addressing Order to Show Cause; December

18, 2023 Order Addressing Motion to Enforce; December 18, 2023 Order

Addressing Plaintiff’s Motions for Sanctions ; and January 5, 2024 order denying the

plaintiff’s motion to reopen discovery

. For the avoidance of doubt, the Court finds2

no reversible error as to any of the Court of Chancery’s decision s identified in the

notice of appeal.

NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the judgment of the Court of

Chancery is AFFIRMED.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Karen L. Valihura

Justice
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

 FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NOTICE

TO RETAINED CRIMINAL DEFENSE ATTORNEY, SUSAN JAMES

USA vs. Ronald McQueen

2:06cr198-WKW

Retained criminal defense attorneys are expected to make financial arrangements satisfactory

to themselves and sufficient to provide for representation of each defendant until the conclusion of

the defendant’s case. Unless this court, within ten (10) days after arraignment, is notified in writing

of counsel’s withdrawal because of the defendant’s failure to make satisfactory financial

arrangements, this court will expect counsel to represent the defendant until the conclusion of the

case. Failure of a defendant to pay sums owed for attorney’s fees or failure of counsel to collect a

sum sufficient to compensate for all the services usually required of defense counsel will not

constitute good cause for withdrawal after said ten-day period has expired.

Every defendant has a right to appeal from any conviction; a convicted defendant’s case is

therefore not concluded until his direct appeal is decided. Thus, the further expectation of this court

and the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is that retained counsel, in making

satisfactory financial arrangements, will contemplate services to be rendered upon appeal.

If a defendant moves the court to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis and/or for

appointment of Criminal Justice Act appellate counsel, retained counsel will be required to disclose

in camera (1) the total amount of fees and costs paid, (2) by whom fees and costs were paid, and (3)

the costs actually incurred and services actually rendered. Note that matters involving the receipt

of fees from a client are not generally privileged, United States v. Sims, 845 F.2d 1564 (11th Cir.

1988); In Re Slaughter, 694 F.2d 1258 (11th Cir. 1982); In Re Grand Jury Proceedings: United States

v. Jones, 517 F.2d 666 (5th Cir. 1975). All information submitted will, of course, be viewed in

camera by the court for the purpose of deciding the defendant’s in forma pauperis motion.

Except in extraordinary, unforeseen circumstances, this policy will be strictly adhered to;

such circumstances may be brought to the court’s attention by motion to be relieved of the duty to

represent the defendant upon appeal.

Case 2:06-cr-00198-WKW-CSC Document 28 Filed 09/26/2006 Page 1 of 1