alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
Alstom announces smart grid business initiatives at DistribuTech 2015

Press Centre Home / 2011 / 6 / Alstom Power study demonstrates carbon capture and storage (CCS) works and is cost

competitive

Press Centre 2011 6 Alstom Power study demonstrates carbon capture and storage (CCS) works and is cost competitive

Alstom Power study demonstrates carbon capture and storage (CCS) works and is cost competitive

30/01/2012

According to Alstom Power: “We can now be confident that carbon capture technology (CCS) works and that it is cost effective”. Unveiling the results of a detailed

Alstom study at PowerGen Europe in Milan, Alstom said that there is no longer anything preventing Europe from embracing carbon capture and storage. The study,

based on experience from the group’s 13 pilot and demonstration projects and validated by independent experts, concludes that the cost of generating electricity at

commercial scale in 2015 will be below 8,5 eurocents/kWh when burning coal or 6.5 eurocents/kWh when burning gas. This is the same as, or even less than, that

from renewable energy sources. The demonstration pilots Alstom is working on have proved that the full chain of capture and storage can work, capture 90% of CO2,

and store it safely and reliably.

Philippe Joubert said: “This is a decisive moment for players in the European energy field, in industry or in policy­making, if they want to position themselves as

active on the world stage for this field of decarbonised fossil fuels, where there is considerable potential.” Over 50% of the world’s electricity will still be produced

from fossil fuels in 2035, and CCS is currently the only valid solution for reducing emissions from fossil fuel generation and more specifically on already existing

power plants.

Alstom has long maintained that all solutions to reduce emissions will be necessary if we are to tackle climate change: increasing the use of all renewable forms of

energy, improving the efficiency of fossil power generation and transmission, and developing carbon capture and storage. The application of CCS to both coal­ and

gas­fired power stations and to industry is essential, and the technology could account for up to 20 percent of the required emissions reduction by the year 2050,

according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).

One of the last arguments against CCS has now fallen: the cost of electricity generated on a commercial scale is no higher than other low­carbon energy sources

and shows that a power plant with CCS is firm, predictable, base­load regime. Some renewable energy sources are much more costly, with photovoltaic panels for

instance coming to 20­30 eurocents/kWh: nearly two to four times as expensive.

After 10 years’ development, CCS technology is on the point of large­scale deployment. A new global market is opening up, and Europe is well positioned given its

technology lead and the steps it is taking to put in place a regulatory framework and to incentivise deployment through the financing of large demonstration plants,

provided, that it does it now.
PGI 204.1103 Procedures.       The System for Award Management (SAM) website at http://www.acquisition.gov/ provides useful documents and on-line training to assist with SAM navigation and data entry. User Guides and Demonstration Videos can be found in the User Help section after clicking the HELP link at the top of the website homepage. The former Central Contractor Registration and Online Representations and Certifications Application data can be located in the Entity Management area of SAM which can be accessed by navigating the following path after logging into the SAM website. Select Tab - MYSAM, Tab - Data Access and Tab - Entity Management          (i) Use the SAM database as the primary source of contractor information for contract award and administration, to include supporting contract writing, management, and administration systems. Do not request or use contractor information from other sources, unless another source is specifically authorized. At a minimum, supporting systems shall use the SAM database as the authoritative source for the following data elements, as applicable by system, when SAM is required in accordance with FAR Subpart 4.11:          (A) Data Universal Number System (DUNS) Number.          (B) DUNS+4 Number.          (C) Commercial and Government Entity (CAGE) Code.          (D) Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN).          (E) Legal Business Name.          (F) Doing Business As (DBA) Name.          (G) Physical Address.          (H) Mailing Address.          (I) Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) information (includes American Banking Association (ABA) Routing Number, Account Number, and Account Type).          (ii) Ensure that SAM non-disclosure requirements regarding TIN and EFT information are followed.    **Parent topic:** PGI 204.11 -SYSTEM FOR AWARD MANAGEMENT
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 1 of 2
Case 2:06-cv-00721-MHT-TFM Document 54 Filed 01/30/2008 Page 2 of 2
<TABLE> <S> <C>

<ARTICLE> 5
       
<S>                             <C>
<PERIOD-TYPE>                   6-MOS
<FISCAL-YEAR-END>                          DEC-31-1997
<PERIOD-END>                               JUN-30-1997
<CASH>                                       3,109,724
<SECURITIES>                                         0
<RECEIVABLES>                                1,675,994
<ALLOWANCES>                                         0
<INVENTORY>                                          0
<CURRENT-ASSETS>                               713,120
<PP&E>                                       2,949,299
<DEPRECIATION>                             (1,203,253)
<TOTAL-ASSETS>                               7,244,884
<CURRENT-LIABILITIES>                        2,304,157
<BONDS>                                              0
<PREFERRED-MANDATORY>                                0
<PREFERRED>                                    345,455
<COMMON>                                       366,664
<OTHER-SE>                                   4,228,608
<TOTAL-LIABILITY-AND-EQUITY>                 7,244,884
<SALES>                                      5,851,206
<TOTAL-REVENUES>                             5,851,206
<CGS>                                        2,734,674
<TOTAL-COSTS>                                2,734,674
<OTHER-EXPENSES>                             4,412,536
<LOSS-PROVISION>                                     0
<INTEREST-EXPENSE>                              16,121
<INCOME-PRETAX>                            (1,312,125)
<INCOME-TAX>                                         0
<INCOME-CONTINUING>                        (1,312,125)
<DISCONTINUED>                                       0
<EXTRAORDINARY>                                      0
<CHANGES>                                            0
<NET-INCOME>                               (1,312,125)
<EPS-PRIMARY>                                    (.09)
<EPS-DILUTED>                                    (.09)
        

</TABLE>
#### § 436.20 Net savings.

For a retrofit project, net savings may be found by subtracting life cycle costs based on the proposed project from life cycle costs based on not having it. For a new building design, net savings is the difference between the life cycle costs of an alternative design and the life cycle costs of the basic design.
#### § 706.1 Purpose.

The purpose of this part is to set forth Department of Energy, hereinafter “DOE,” security policies and practices in the area of labor-management relations.
# EUR-Lex - 31979R2225 - EN

Avis juridique important

*|*

# 31979R2225

**Council Regulation (EEC) No 2225/79 of 9 October 1979 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 concerning the certification of hops **

*
Official Journal L 257 , 12/10/1979 P. 0001 - 0001 Finnish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0135 Greek special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 26 P. 0157 Swedish special edition: Chapter 3 Volume 11 P. 0135 Spanish special edition: Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0276 Portuguese special edition Chapter 03 Volume 16 P. 0276 *

COUNCIL REGULATION (EEC) No 2225/79 of 9 October 1979 amending Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 concerning the certification of hops

THE COUNCIL OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES,

Having regard to the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community,

Having regard to Council Regulation (EEC) No 1696/71 of 26 July 1971 on the common organization of the market in hops (1), as last amended by Regulation (EEC) No 235/79 (2), and in particular Article 2 (4) thereof,

Having regard to the proposal from the Commission,

Whereas the operation of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 of 19 July 1977 concerning the certification of hops (3) has shown that checking the net weight of hop cones, which must be mentioned on the certificate, has caused technical difficulties in some cases ; whereas provision should be made to enable the gross weight to be indicated on the certificate in addition to or instead of the net weight,

HAS ADOPTED THIS REGULATION:

Article 1

Article 5 (1) (c) of Regulation (EEC) No 1784/77 is hereby amended to read as follows:

"(c) the net and/or gross weight;".

Article 2

This Regulation shall enter into force on the third day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

This Regulation shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.

Done at Luxembourg, 9 October 1979.

For the Council

The President

D. O'MALLEY (1)OJ No L 175, 4.8.1971, p. 1. (2)OJ No L 34, 9.2.1979, p. 4. (3)OJ No L 200, 8.8.1977, p. 1.
## United States Court of Appeals FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________ No. 09-3258

___________ Serafin Ruiz Carrillo, * * Petitioner, * * Petition for Review of v. * an Order of the Board * of Immigration Appeals. Eric H. Holder, Jr., Attorney General * of the United States, * [UNPUBLISHED] * Respondent. *

___________ Submitted: June 11, 2010 Filed: June 16, 2010

___________ Before MELLOY, BOWMAN, and SMITH, Circuit Judges.

___________ PER CURIAM. Serafin Ruiz Carrillo, a citizen of Mexi co, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) denying his motion to reopen and reconsider the BIA’s prior decision, affirming an immigration judge’s denial of cancellation of removal. We conclude Carrillo has waived any challenge to the BIA’s denial of reopening and recons ideration, see Averianova v. Holder , 592 F.3d 931, 935 (8th Cir. 2010) (alien waived claim by failing to pres ent argument on appeal), and that the denial of cancellation of removal is not properly before us, see 8 U.S.C. § 1252(b)(1) (petition for review must be filed within 30 days of final order of removal); Boudaguian v. Ashcroft , 376 F.3d 825, 827 (8th Cir. 2004) (motion to reopen andreconsider filed after BIA affirmed IJ’s de nial of removal relief did not toll time for seeking judicial review of BIA’ s affirmance of IJ’s decision). Accordingly, we deny the petition for review. We also deny respondent’s pending motion.

______________________________

-2-
STEAM ELECTRIC

CBI REPLACEMENT PAGE

EPA-HQ-OW-2009-0819

DCN: ________________________________________

THE FOLLOWING HAS BEEN REMOVED BECAUSE IT 

CONTAINS CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS INFORMATION 

(CBI) PER 40 CFR PART 2, SUBPART B.

SE04331A012
§ 600.29 Fixed obligation awards. ( a ) *General.* This section contains provisions applicable to the award of financial assistance instruments on a fixed amount basis. Under a fixed obligation award, funds are issued in support of a project without a requirement for Federal monitoring of actual costs subsequently incurred.
( b ) *Provisions applicable to fixed obligation awards.* Financial assistance awards may be made on a fixed obligation basis subject to the following requirements: ( 1 ) Each fixed obligation award may neither exceed $250,000 nor exceed one year in length.
( 2 ) Programs which require mandatory cost sharing are not eligible.
( 3 ) Proposed costs must be analyzed in detail to ensure consistency with applicable cost principles.
( 4 ) Budget categories are not stipulated in making an award. However, budgets are submitted by an applicant and reviewed for purposes of establishing the amount to be awarded.
( 5 ) Payments must be made in the same manner as other financial assistance awards, except that when determined appropriate by the cognizant program official and Contracting Officer a lump sum payment may be made.
( 6 ) Recipients must certify in writing to the Contracting Officer at the end of the project that the activity was completed or the level of effort was expended, however should the activity or effort not be carried out, the recipient would be expected to make appropriate reimbursements.
( 7 ) Periodic reports may be established for each award so long as they are not more frequently than quarterly.
( 8 ) Changes in principal investigator or project leader, scope of effort, or institution, must receive the prior approval of the Department.
[61 FR 7166, Feb. 26, 1996, as amended at 74 FR 44277, Aug. 28, 2009]
2007-1918.

#### Disciplinary Counsel v. McShane.

This cause is pending before the court upon the filing of a report by the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline. Upon consideration of respondent’s motion for remand to the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline,

It is ordered by the court that the motion is denied. It is further ordered that the stay of the filing of objections imposed on November 26, 2007, is lifted. Objections to the findings of fact and recommendation of the board, together with a brief in support thereof, shall be due on or before 20 days from the date of this order. An answer brief may be filed on or before 15 days after any objections and brief in support of objections have been filed. Pursuant to S.Ct.Prae.R. XIV(3)(B)(2), no further extension of time may be requested by respondent.
#### The People of the State of New York, Respondent, v. Michael Virgilio, Appellant.

Appeal by defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Nassau County, rendered November 27, 1968, convicting him of grand larceny in the first degree, after a non jury trial, and imposing sentence. Appeal dismissed insofar as defendant seeks review of two orders of said court, one dated October 30, 1967 denying his motion *inter alia*to dismiss the indictment and the other, dated May 7, 1968, which, on reargument, adhered to the determination in .the order of October 30, 1967. Review of these orders is academic in view of the determination herein with respect to the judgment. Judgment reversed, on the law and the facts, and indictment dismissed. In our opinion, the circumstantial evidence, upon which .the People relied exclusively, failed to exclude to a moral certainty every other hypothesis except defendant’s guilt of the crime charged, viz., stealing and appropriating for his own use cement belonging to his employer valued in excess of *$500*(Richardson, Evidence [9th ed.], § 152). In addition, there was absolutely no proof (circumstantial or direct) as to what happened to the cement allegedly stolen and thus a failure to prove an essential element of the crime charged (see *People*v. *Dreares,*15 A D 2d 204, 206, affd. 11 N Y 2d 906). Christ, Acting P. J., Munder and Martuseello, JJ., concur; Benjamin, J., dissents and votes to affirm the judgment; (Beldock, P. J., deceased.) [See 34 A D 2d 788.]
```

[Congressional Bills 109th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 646 Introduced in House (IH)]

109th CONGRESS
  2d Session
H. RES. 646

 Denying the entitlement to the privilege of admission to the Hall of 
    the House to any former Member of the House who is a registered 
                               lobbyist.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            January 31, 2006

 Mr. Jones of North Carolina (for himself, Mr. Jindal, and Mr. Flake) 
submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee 
                                on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
 Denying the entitlement to the privilege of admission to the Hall of 
    the House to any former Member of the House who is a registered 
                               lobbyist.

    Resolved,

SECTION 1. PROHIBITING ACCESS TO HALL OF THE HOUSE BY FORMER MEMBERS 
              WORKING AS REGISTERED LOBBYISTS.

    Clause 4(a) of rule IV of the Rules of the House of Representatives 
is amended--
            (1) by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph (1);
            (2) by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (2) 
        and inserting ``; and''; and
            (3) by adding at the end the following new subparagraph:
            ``(3) the individual is not a lobbyist registered under the 
        Lobbying Disclosure Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1601 et seq.) or any 
        successor law or a lobbyist who, as an employee of an 
        organization, is covered by the registration of that 
        organization under that Act or any successor law.''.
                                 <all>
```
exv4w3w11






Exhibit 4.3.11




REDGATE MEDIA GROUP




AMENDMENT AGREEMENT TO SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT


This AMENDMENT AGREEMENT TO THE SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT (“Agreement”), effective as of December
18, 2009 (the “Effective Date”), is made and entered into by and among Redgate Media Group, a
corporation organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands (the “Company”), and the undersigned
Hyposwiss Private Bank Genève SA, a corporation organized under the laws of Switzerland (the
“Purchaser”) with reference to the material facts and circumstances set forth in the Recitals
below.




RECITALS



A. The Purchaser is acquiring an aggregate of six hundred and thirty-six point seven eight (636.78)
shares of Class G Preference Shares (the “Shares”).



B. The Shares were acquired by previous purchasers pursuant to that certain Class G Preference
Share Purchase Agreement on December 4, 2009.



C. The previous purchasers also became parties to the Shareholders Agreement by executing that
certain Fourth Amendment to the Shareholders Agreement (the “SHA”) dated December 4, 2009.



D. Pursuant to the terms of the SHA all provisions contained therein shall be binding on all
subsequent purchasers and transferees.




AMENDMENT



NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the issuance of Shares, the mutual promises and acknowledgments
hereinafter made, and other good and valuable consideration receipt of which is hereby
acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:



1. Purchaser acknowledges having received and reviewed a copy of the SHA attached hereto as
Exhibit A respectively, including all exhibits, schedules, and amendments thereto, and
understands the contents thereof.



2. Purchaser hereby joins the SHA as a “Shareholder” as defined therein, and acknowledges, accepts
to be bound by, and agrees to the terms of the SHA.



3. Purchaser’s execution of this Agreement shall be deemed an execution of the SHA and unless
specified in this Agreement the terms and conditions thereof shall be included herein by this
reference.








 









 







IN WITNESS WHEREOF, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the parties have caused this
Amendment Agreement to be executed as of the date first set forth above.




	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	Company	 	 	 	 	 	Purchaser	 	 
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	REDGATE MEDIA GROUP,	 	 	 	HYPOSWISS PRIVATE BANK GENEVE SA
	A Cayman Islands corporation	 	 	 	A Swiss corporation
	 
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	By:	 	/s/ Peter Bush Brack	 	 	 	By:	 	/s/ Jean-Denis Braillard; /s/ Wolfgang Derungs
	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 	 
	 

	 	Name:
	 	Peter Bush Brack
	 	 	 	 	 	Name:
	 	Jean-Denis Braillard     Wolfgang Derungs
	 

	 	Title:
	 	Chairman & CEO
	 	 	 	 	 	Title:
	 	Authorised Signatory     Authorised Signatory






 









 






EXHIBIT A




SHAREHOLDERS AGREEMENT



[See Exhibit 4.3.5]
COURT OF APPEALS

	SECOND DISTRICT OF TEXAS

	FORT WORTH

	NO. 2-07-126-CR

ELIZABETH ANNE ROHR	APPELLANT

	V.

THE STATE OF TEXAS	STATE

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

	FROM COUNTY CRIMINAL COURT NO. 3 OF DENTON COUNTY

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

	MEMORANDUM OPINION1

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

	On March 13, 2007, appellant Elizabeth Anne Rohr filed a notice of appeal from the trial court’s denial of her motion for judgment nunc pro tunc.  On April 12, 2007, we informed appellant by letter of our concern that we do not have jurisdiction over such an appeal;2 we also told appellant that the appeal could be dismissed for want of jurisdiction unless she or any party desiring to continue the appeal filed a response showing grounds for continuing the appeal on or before April 23, 2007.  We have not received any response showing grounds for continuing the appeal.3

	Accordingly, we dismiss this appeal for want of jurisdiction.  See Tex. R. App. P. 43.2(f); Sanchez, 112 S.W.3d at 312; Everett, 82 S.W.3d at 735.

								PER CURIAM

PANEL D:  LIVINGSTON, DAUPHINOT, and HOLMAN, JJ.

DO NOT PUBLISH

Tex. R. App. P. 47.2(b)

DELIVERED: June 7, 2007
---

Exhibit 32





Certification


Pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002


(Subsections (a) and (b) of Section 1350, Chapter 63 of Title 18, United States Code)








Pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code), each of the undersigned officers of FNB United Corp., a North Carolina corporation (the “Corporation”), does hereby certify that:





The Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the quarter ended June 30, 2009 (the “Form 10-Q”) of the Corporation fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and information contained in the Form 10-Q fairly presents, in all materials respects, the financial condition and results
of operations of the Corporation.








Date:       August 7, 2009
/s/Michael C. MillerMichael C. MillerChief Executive OfficerDate:       August 7, 2009
/s/Mark A. SeversonMark A. SeversonChief Financial Officer








The foregoing certification is being furnished solely pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 (subsections (a) and (b) of section 1350, chapter 63 of title 18, United States Code) and is not being filed as part of the Form 10-Q or as a separate disclosure document.
#### § 71.123 Test control.

The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall establish a test program to assure that all testing required to demonstrate that the packaging components will perform satisfactorily in service is identified and performed in accordance with written test procedures that incorporate the requirements of this part and the requirements and acceptance limits contained in the package approval. The test procedures must include provisions for assuring that all prerequisites for the given test are met, that adequate test instrumentation is available and used, and that the test is performed under suitable environmental conditions. The licensee, certificate holder, and applicant for a CoC shall document and evaluate the test results to assure that test requirements have been satisfied.